Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 31.180 (2026)

Defendant, having appeared in action, may move for discharge of attachment upon giving undertaking; stipulations for release of attachments

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 31.180  Defendant, having appeared in action, may move for discharge of attachment upon giving undertaking; stipulations for release of attachments.

      1.  Whenever the defendant shall have appeared in the action, the defendant may apply, upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, to the court in which the action is pending, or to the judge thereof, for an order to discharge the attachment, wholly or in part, upon the execution and filing of the undertaking mentioned in NRS 31.190. Such order may be granted directing the release from the operation of the attachment, upon the filing of such undertaking and the justification of the sureties thereon, if required by the plaintiff, of all or any part of the property, money, debts or credits attached, as the case may be. All the proceeds of sales and moneys collected by the sheriff, and all the property attached remaining in the sheriff’s hands, so released, shall be delivered or paid to the defendant upon the filing of such undertaking and making such justification, if required by the plaintiff.

      2.  The plaintiff and defendant may stipulate in writing that the attachment of defendant’s property may be released wholly or in part. Upon the filing of such a stipulation, the sheriff shall release the property pursuant to the stipulation.

      [1911 CPA § 221; RL § 5163; NCL § 8719]—(NRS A 1967, 270)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1958–1993 · leading case: Elliott v. Denton & Denton, 860 P.2d 725 (Nev. 1993).
Elliott v. Denton & Denton, 860 P.2d 725 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “See also NRS 31.180(2). If Denton doubted the validity of the return order, it should have properly challenged it in court; instead, Denton chose to defy the order.”
Cooper v. Liebert, 402 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1965). “030 (2)), or to discharge an attachment (NRS 31.180, NRS 31.200), but appellant would leave one not involved in the lawsuit without a speedy or adequate remedy at all.”
Aronoff v. Katleman, 345 P.2d 221 (Nev. 1959). “” NRS 31.180. “Whenever the defendant shall have appeared in the action, he may apply, upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, to the court in which the action is pending, or to the judge thereof, for an order to discharge the attachment, wholly or in part, upon the execution…”
Covrig v. Powers, 332 P.2d 650 (Nev. 1958). “Rains on the 18th day of September, 1956: * * Appellant’s contention as to the invalidity of the bond derives from his insistence that a bond for release of the attachment depends for its validity upon the provisions of NRS 31.180 providing that the defendant, after appearance,…”
United Pac. Ins. v. Chism Homes, Inc., 728 P.2d 809 (Nev. 1986). “On granting an order for discharge of attachment pursuant to NRS 31.180, the court or the judge shall require an undertaking on *496 behalf of the defendant, with at least two sureties, residents and freeholders, or householders, in the county which shall be filed: (a) To the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 31.180(2) — 1 case
Elliott v. Denton & Denton, 860 P.2d 725 (Nev. 1993). “See also NRS 31.180(2). If Denton doubted the validity of the return order, it should have properly challenged it in court; instead, Denton chose to defy the order.”
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.