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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.185 (2026)

Application alleging unconstitutional prior restraint; court required to render judgment on application not later than 30 days after application is filed

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.185  Application alleging unconstitutional prior restraint; court required to render judgment on application not later than 30 days after application is filed.

      1.  If the applicant is alleging an unconstitutional prior restraint of the applicant’s rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, the applicant shall insert the words “First Amendment Petition” in the caption of the application for the writ in at least 10-point type.

      2.  The court shall render judgment on an application for a writ described in subsection 1 not later than 30 days after the date on which the application for the writ is filed.

      (Added to NRS by 1999, 176)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2013–2020 · leading case: Weller Vs. Dist. Ct. (Riley) (Nev. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weller Vs. Dist. Ct. (Riley) (Nev. 2020). “Weller now challenges the district court's order as an unconstitutional prior restraint on her First Amendment freedom of speech.”
Braunstein (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2013). “NRS 34.185. Petitioner has raised the same underlying issue in at least five other original filings in this court.”
Braunstein (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2013). “NRS 34.185. Petitioner has raised the same underlying issue in at least five other original filings in this court.”
Braunstein (Steve) v. State (Nev. 2014). “See NRS 34.185. Third, appellant claimed that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him and asserted that the procedural bars did not apply to this claim because jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.”
Jung (Koo) v. State (Nev. 2014). “See NRS 34.185(1). Further, his claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the district court.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.185(1) — 1 case
Jung (Koo) v. State (Nev. 2014). “See NRS 34.185(1). Further, his claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the district court.”
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.