Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 3 - DISTRICT COURTS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.220 (2026)

Equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 3.220  Equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction.  The district judges shall possess equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction and power. They each shall have power to hold court in any county of this State. They each shall exercise and perform the powers, duties and functions of the court and of judges thereof and of judges at chambers. The decision in an action or proceeding may be written or signed at any place in the State by the judge who acted on the trial and may be forwarded to and filed by the clerk, who shall thereupon enter judgment as directed in the decision, or judgment may be rendered in open court, and, if so rendered, shall be entered by the clerk accordingly. If the public business requires, each judge may try causes and transact judicial business in the same county at the same time. Each judge shall have power to transact business which may be done in chambers at any point within the State, and court shall be held in each county at least once in every 6 months and as often and as long as the business of the county requires. All of this section is subject to the provision that each judge may direct and control the business in his or her own district and shall see that it is properly performed.

      [1:59:1895; C § 2573; RL § 4922; NCL § 8469]

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 4× “59 NRS 3.220; Rohlfing v. District Court, 106 Nev.”
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “; see NRS 3.220. To that end, this court explained that "the Legislature, by creating family courts and giving them exclusive original jurisdiction over certain matters, removed oversight of [proceedings expressly set forth in NRS 3.”
Mainor v. Nault, 101 P.3d 308 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “Although Mainor and Harris argue that NRS 3.220 gives district courts “equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction and power,” NRS 3.”
Walker v. Reynolds Elec. & Eng'g Co., 468 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1970). · cites it 9× “1 He concedes NRS 3.220 2 confers power upon district judges to hold court anywhere in the state, but argues that power may *231 be exercised only after formal assignment.”
Rohlfing v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 803 P.2d 659 (Nev. 1990). · cites it 2× “6, § 6; NRS 3.220; Warden v. Owens, 93 Nev. 255 , 563 P.”
Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006). “NRS 3.220 (providing that the district court judges possess equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction and power); Rohlfing v.”
Zabeti v. State, 96 P.3d 773 (Nev. 2004). “In addition, NRS 3.220 provides that “[t]he district judges shall possess equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction and power.”
State ex rel. Masto v. Montero, 188 P.3d 47 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 4× “109(12) designated a district judge as a “state officer,” (2) the jurisdiction of district judges in Nevada was statewide under NRS 3.220, and (3) the Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court may assign one judicial district court judge to conduct business in another district…”
Landreth v. Malik, 221 P.3d 1265 (Nev. 2009). “; see NRS 3.220. To that end, this court explained that "the Legislature, by creating family courts and giving them exclusive original jurisdiction over certain matters, removed oversight of [proceedings expressly set forth in NRS 3.”
State v. Sustacha, 826 P.2d 959 (Nev. 1992). “” See NRS 3.220 (district judges “possess equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction and power”).”
Lagrange Constr., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Corp., 435 P.2d 515 (Nev. 1967). · cites it 4× “Respondents also urge that NRS 3.220 [1] applies in the instant case and that the trial judge's decision became final when he deposited it in the mail addressed to the clerk of the court.”
De La Cruz v. Dufresne, 533 F. Supp. 145 (D. Nev. 1982). “NRS 3.220; Twaddle v. Winters, 29 Nev. 88 , 85 P.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.