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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.160 (2026)

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

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.160  Writ may be issued by appellate and district courts; when writ may issue.  The writ may be issued by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, a district court or a judge of the district court, to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person. When issued by a district court or a judge of the district court it shall be made returnable before the district court.

      [1911 CPA § 753; RL § 5695; NCL § 9242]—(NRS A 2013, 1734)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 912 cases (118 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 42 P.3d 233 (Nev. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 42 P.3d 233 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 4× “[3] Del Papa renewed a motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2001, requesting that all the claims in her individual capacity be dismissed.”
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 267 P.3d 777 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “2 DISCUSSION A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, NRS 34.160, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, see Round Hill Gen.”
Marquis & Aurbach v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 146 P.3d 1130 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 4× “[13] See NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 4× “NRS 34.160 (providing for mandamus to compel the performance of an act the law requires “as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station”); NRS 34.”
Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 637 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1981). · cites it 2× “Under the plain meaning of NRS 533.370(3)(b), the State Engineer therefore has discretion to withhold action on petitioners’ applications.”
Sturrock v. State, 604 P.2d 341 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 6× “NRS 34.160. [4] By failing to pursue this remedy, and instead proceeding to trial, appellant has waived any impropriety regarding the trial court's inaction.”
Lowe Enter. Residential Partners, L.P. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 40 P.3d 405 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 3× “Extraordinary review is available in this case Under NRS 34.160, this court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.”
Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 179 P.3d 556 (Nev. 2008). “NRS 34.160; see also Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev.”
Burch v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 49 P.3d 647 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; see also Round Hill Gen.”
Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 127 P.3d 1088 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “As the Attorney General has since joined the petition, and as it is IGT that will be affected if the district court proceeds with the FCA action and IGT's taxpayer rights that will assertedly be impinged, the proper parties have sought extraordinary relief in this instance.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 134 P.3d 111 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “[2] "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, see NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.”
Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 152 P.3d 737 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 2× “The Honorable Michael A. Cherry, Justice, and the Honorable Nancy M.”
Show all 912 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.