NRS
33.100 Penalty for intentional violation of order. A person who intentionally violates:
1. A temporary order is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
2. An extended order and:
(a) Who has not previously violated an extended
order is guilty of a misdemeanor;
(b) Who has previously violated an extended order
one time is guilty of a gross misdemeanor; or
(c) Who has previously violated an extended order
two or more times is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as
provided in NRS 193.130.
Ê Each act
that constitutes a violation of the temporary or extended order may be
prosecuted as a separate violation of the order.
(Added to NRS by 1985,
2286; A 1989,
138; 1995,
1014; 1997,
35; 2001
Special Session, 123; 2003,
1515; 2005,
955; 2019,
2835, 2855)
UNIFORM RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CANADIAN
DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDERS ACT
General Provisions
Notes of Decisions
City of Las Vegas v. Las Vegas Mun. Court, 879 P.2d 739 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 6× “NRS 33.100. The city contends that because the violation of a TPO is a misdemeanor under Las Vegas city ordinances, the municipal court has jurisdiction to enforce TPOs.”
Grimes v. Williams (D. Nev. 2022).
“120(2)(c); 20 NRS 33.100; NRS 200.591(5)(a). There was no evidence that Grimes attempted to leave the apartment at any time before the altercation.”
Sagherian v. City of Henderson (D. Nev. 2024).
“4 Plaintiff was charged with Violation of an Extended Protective Order under NRS 33.100 5 in state court for “call[ing] and/or text[ing] Mary Sagherian one or more times, after ordered 6 not to by an [EPO].”
Sagherian v. City of Henderson (D. Nev. 2024).
“22 Plaintiff was charged with Violation of an Extended Protective Order under NRS 33.100 23 in state court for “call[ing] and/or text[ing] Mary Sagherian one or more times, after ordered 24 25 courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 33.100(l)(b) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Las Vegas Mun. Court, 879 P.2d 739 (Nev. 1994).
“NRS 33.100. The city contends that because the violation of a TPO is a misdemeanor under Las Vegas city ordinances, the municipal court has jurisdiction to enforce TPOs.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 33.100(l)(c) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Las Vegas Mun. Court, 879 P.2d 739 (Nev. 1994).
“NRS 33.100. The city contends that because the violation of a TPO is a misdemeanor under Las Vegas city ordinances, the municipal court has jurisdiction to enforce TPOs.”
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.