Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.320
Writ of prohibition defined
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.320 Writ of prohibition defined. The
writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandate. It arrests the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising judicial
functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction
of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.
[1911 CPA § 766; RL § 5708; NCL § 9255]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 441
cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: State v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
State v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2002)
“[6] NRS 34.320. [7] Newman, <a href="/opinion/1168722/round-hill-general-improvement-district-v-newman/#604" aria-description="Citation for case: Round Hill General Improvement District v.”
International Game Technology, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of Washoe (2006)
“3d 233, 237 (2002); NRS 34.320. [22] Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc.”
Ham v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT, ETC. (1977)
“It is clear that a writ of prohibition must issue when there is an act to be "arrested" which is "without or in excess of the jurisdiction" of the trial judge under NRS 34.320 [1] , Culinary Workers v.”
State v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Clark (2011)
“Because prohibition is focused on arresting the proceedings of a district court that is acting in excess of its jurisdiction, NRS 34.320, and the district court here clearly had jurisdiction over the prosecution and to decide evidentiary issues, we conclude that prohibition is…”
Mineral County v. STATE, DEPT. OF CONSERV. (2001)
“" [19] NRS 34.320 defines the writ of prohibition as "the counterpart of the writ of mandate.”
Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1991)
“See NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel performance of a judicial act when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law in order to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from office.”
Friedman v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark (2011)
“" NRS 34.320. A writ of mandamus may issue "to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.”
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2007)
“NRS 34.320; Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. District Court, <a href="/opinion/8084555/houston-general-insurance-v-eighth-judicial-district-court-of-the-nevada/#248" aria-description="Citation for case: Houston General Insurance v.”
Miller v. Burk (2008)
“Because prohibition is used to control the exercise of judicial functions only, see NRS 34.320, it does not apply here, and therefore, we consider Sisolak’s alternative request for mandamus.”
Division of Child & Family Services v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004)
“…Judicial District Court of the State of...">Id. NRS 34.320. Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners, 116 Nev. 646 , 649, <a href="/opinion/2590143/pengilly-v-rancho-sant”
State v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2005)
“See NRS 34.320; Hickey v. District Court, <a href="/opinion/1147656/hickey-v-eighth-judicial-district-court/#731" aria-description="Citation for case: Hickey v.”
Club Vista Financial Services, L.L.C. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2012)
“6 NRS 34.320. Writ relief is generally not available if the petitioner has “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
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.