NRS
31.200 Grounds for discharge of attachment.
1. The defendant may also, at any time
before trial, apply by motion, upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, to the
court in which the action is brought or to the judge thereof, for a discharge
of the attachment, or the money or property attached through the use of a writ
of garnishment, on the following grounds:
(a) That the writ was improperly or improvidently
issued.
(b) That the property levied upon is exempt from
execution or necessary and required by the defendant for the support and
maintenance of the defendant and the members of the defendant’s family.
(c) That the levy is excessive.
2. If the court or the judge thereof on
the hearing of such motion shall find that any of the grounds stated in subsection
1 exist, the attachment and levy thereof shall be discharged. If the motion is
based upon paragraph (c) of subsection 1 only, and the fact is found to exist,
the discharge of attachment shall be only as to the excess.
[1911 CPA § 223; A 1921,
4; NCL § 8721]—(NRS A 1973,
1180)
Notes of Decisions
McMillan v. United Mortg. Co., 412 P.2d 604 (Nev. 1966).
· cites it 6× “" Pursuant to NRS 31.200, subd. 1(a) McMillan moved to discharge the attachment.”
Paramount Ins., Inc. v. Rayson & Smitley, 472 P.2d 530 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 4× “See NRS 31.200. [5] 7. The affidavit by counsel for Paramount, upon which the attachment was issued, stated only the sum by which the affiant believed the indebtedness exceeded the value of the security.”
Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williams, 503 P.2d 9 (Nev. 1972).
· cites it 2× “200 and related statutory provisions in his effort to have all or part of his property released from attachment, and as a consequence he should have been precluded from recovering damages for abuse of process. Although NRS 31.200 provides an avenue for relief from an excessive…”
Elliott v. Denton & Denton, 860 P.2d 725 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 4× “2d 9 (1972), we stated: The appellants also contend that the respondent failed to take advantage of NRS 31.200 and related statutory provisions in his effort to have all or part of his property released from attachment, and as a consequence he should have been precluded from…”
Cooper v. Liebert, 402 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1965).
“180, NRS 31.200), but appellant would leave one not involved in the lawsuit without a speedy or adequate remedy at all.”
Nelson v. Sierra Constr. Corp., 352 P.2d 125 (Nev. 1960).
· cites it 2× “” The statutory grounds for discharge of attachment are found in NRS 31.200 which reads as follows: “1. The defendant may also, at any time before trial, apply upon motion, upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, to the court in which the action is brought or to the judge…”
Covrig v. Powers, 332 P.2d 650 (Nev. 1958).
“Appellant also refers to NRS 31.200 under which application may be made to the court for a discharge of the attachment on the ground (a) that it was improperly issued, (b) that the property levied upon is exempt from execution or (c) that the levy is excessive.”
The Lakeshore House Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of the West (Nev. 2019).
“Appellants argue that the prejudgment writ of attachment was improperly or improvidently issued," pursuant to NRS 31.200(1)(a), because the district court: (1) did not permit them to offer evidence at the hearing on the prejudgment writ; (2) made findings on the merits of the…”
The Lakeshore House Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of the West (Nev. 2019).
“Appellants argue that the prejudgment writ of attachment was improperly or improvidently issued," pursuant to NRS 31.200(1)(a), because the district court: (1) did not permit them to offer evidence at the hearing on the prejudgment writ; (2) made findings on the merits of the…”
State ex rel. Gutting v. Lamb, 464 P.2d 27 (Nev. 1970).
“Petitioner can seek to remove the attachment by motion under NRS 31.200. He therefore has an adequate remedy at law.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 31.200(1)(a) — 2 cases
The Lakeshore House Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of the West (Nev. 2019).
“Appellants argue that the prejudgment writ of attachment was improperly or improvidently issued," pursuant to NRS 31.200(1)(a), because the district court: (1) did not permit them to offer evidence at the hearing on the prejudgment writ; (2) made findings on the merits of the…”
The Lakeshore House Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of the West (Nev. 2019).
“Appellants argue that the prejudgment writ of attachment was improperly or improvidently issued," pursuant to NRS 31.200(1)(a), because the district court: (1) did not permit them to offer evidence at the hearing on the prejudgment writ; (2) made findings on the merits of the…”
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.