Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 34 - WRITS; PETITION TO ESTABLISH FACTUAL INNOCENCE

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.020

Writ may be granted by appellate and district courts; when writ may issue

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.020  Writ may be granted by appellate and district courts; when writ may issue.

      1.  This writ may be granted, on application, by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, a district court, or a judge of the district court. When the writ is issued by the district court or a judge of the district court it shall be made returnable before the district court.

      2.  The writ shall be granted in all cases when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

      3.  In any case prosecuted for the violation of a statute or municipal ordinance wherein an appeal has been taken from a Justice Court or from a municipal court, and wherein the district court has passed upon the constitutionality or validity of such statute or ordinance, the writ shall be granted by the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution upon application of the State or municipality or defendant, for the purpose of reviewing the constitutionality or validity of such statute or ordinance, but in no case shall the defendant be tried again for the same offense.

      [1911 CPA § 742; A 1939, 114; 1931 NCL § 9231]—(NRS A 2013, 1733)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Las Vegas Police Protective Ass'n Metro, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Las Vegas Police Protective Ass'n Metro, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of (2006) nev · cites it 6× “PPA asserts that the sealed documents are irrelevant since, as PPA was not given the documents and the district court never provided a detailed inventory of what was examined, there is no proof that the documents are the same as those originally considered by the district court.…”
SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial District Court (2007) nev · cites it 4× “Hardesty and Ron Parraguirre, Justices, voluntarily recused themselves from participation in the decision of this matter. [2] The cost cap refers to the $2.”
Zamarripa v. First Judicial District Court (1987) nev · cites it 3× “560 outside the realm of a malum prohibitum offense. The justice court’s judgment was affirmed and remanded for the execution of the sentence.”
City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2002) nev · cites it 2× “260 is not unconstitutional because it conveys a "sufficiently definite warning as to the [proscribed] conduct so as to enable a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct was forbidden.”
Silvar v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2006) nev “030, is both unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and therefore void.”
Dayside Inc. v. First Judicial District Court Ex Rel. Carson City (2003) nev · cites it 2× “4 NRS 34.020(2). 5 NRS 34.020(2); NRS 34.170; State of Nevada v.”
Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2001) nev “14 NRS 34.020(2). 15 NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen.”
City of Reno v. Second Judicial District Court (1967) nev · cites it 4× “Proof that the accused bears an evil reputation and is found consorting with any person of evil reputation is prima facie evidence "that such consorting was for an unlawful purpose.”
Dangberg Holdings Nevada, L.L.C. v. Douglas County (1999) nev · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION The district court did not exceed its jurisdiction in granting the Glide Estate and the State of Nevada leave to intervene. A writ of certiorari may be granted where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions exceeds its jurisdiction and…”
Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Elko (1980) nev “1 NRS 34.020 provides in part: “2. The writ [of certiorari] shall be granted in all cases when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of…”
Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n (2000) nev “2d at 719 (noting that *648 an appeal is an adequate legal remedy); NRS 34.020 (providing that a writ of certiorari may issue only if there is no appeal or other adequate remedy); NRS 34.”
Cirac v. Lander County (1979) nev “NRS 34.020-, 140. See State v. Board of Regents, 70 Nev.”
Show all 103 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.020(2) — 48 cases
Las Vegas Police Protective Ass'n Metro, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of (2006) nev “PPA asserts that the sealed documents are irrelevant since, as PPA was not given the documents and the district court never provided a detailed inventory of what was examined, there is no proof that the documents are the same as those originally considered by the district court.…”
SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial District Court (2007) nev “Hardesty and Ron Parraguirre, Justices, voluntarily recused themselves from participation in the decision of this matter. [2] The cost cap refers to the $2.”
Dayside Inc. v. First Judicial District Court Ex Rel. Carson City (2003) nev “4 NRS 34.020(2). 5 NRS 34.020(2); NRS 34.170; State of Nevada v.”
Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2001) nev “14 NRS 34.020(2). 15 NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen.”
Dangberg Holdings Nevada, L.L.C. v. Douglas County (1999) nev “DISCUSSION The district court did not exceed its jurisdiction in granting the Glide Estate and the State of Nevada leave to intervene. A writ of certiorari may be granted where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions exceeds its jurisdiction and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.020(3) — 27 cases
City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2002) nev “260 is not unconstitutional because it conveys a "sufficiently definite warning as to the [proscribed] conduct so as to enable a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct was forbidden.”
Silvar v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2006) nev “030, is both unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and therefore void.”
City of Reno v. Second Judicial District Court (1967) nev “Proof that the accused bears an evil reputation and is found consorting with any person of evil reputation is prima facie evidence "that such consorting was for an unlawful purpose.”
Zamarripa v. First Judicial District Court (1987) nev “560 outside the realm of a malum prohibitum offense. The justice court’s judgment was affirmed and remanded for the execution of the sentence.”
Silvar v. Dist. Ct. (2006) nev
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.