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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.330 (2026)

Writ may be issued by appellate or district court when no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.330  Writ may be issued by appellate or district court when no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law.  The writ may be issued only by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or a district court to an inferior tribunal, or to a corporation, board or person, in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is issued upon affidavit, on the application of the person beneficially interested.

      [1911 CPA § 767; RL § 5709; NCL § 9256]—(NRS A 2003, 1409; 2013, 1734)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 328 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 88 P.3d 840 (Nev. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 88 P.3d 840 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “See also NRS 34.330 (providing that a writ of prohibition may issue if there is no adequate and speedy remedy at law).”
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 4× “" NRS 34.330. "Normally, this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss but we may do so where, as here, the issue is not fact-bound and involves an unsettled and potentially significant, recurring question of law.”
Ham v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, Etc., 566 P.2d 420 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 4× “2d 500 (1934), and "where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" pursuant to NRS 34.330 [2] . Heilig v. Christensen, 91 Nev.”
Mineral Cnty. v. State, Dept. of Conserv., 20 P.3d 800 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “A final decree and order was entered in 1936 and amended by the Ninth Circuit in 1940. [25] The April 14, 1986, Decree provides, in relevant part: This decree shall be deemed to determine all of the rights of the parties to this suit and their successors in interests in and to…”
Pan v. Dist. Ct., 88 P.3d 840 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “[2] See also NRS 34.330 (providing that a writ of prohibition may issue if there is no adequate and speedy remedy at law).”
Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 818 P.2d 849 (Nev. 1991). “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.”
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 168 P.3d 731 (Nev. 2007). “The record shows that the district court was reluctant to reach its holding because, while it could not determine that First Light’s notice was technically insufficient under the statute, the district court recognized and expressed its concern that First Light’s notice did not…”
Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (Nev. 2008). “170; NRS 34.330. 17 See NRS 293.182(1). 18 NRS 293.”
Div. of Child & Fam. Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 92 P.3d 1239 (Nev. 2004). “The clerk of this court shall issue a writ of prohibition directing the district court to vacate its order holding the DCFS in contempt of court.”
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). “170; NRS 34.330; Hickey, 105 Nev. at 731 , 782 P.”
Club Vista Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 276 P.3d 246 (Nev. 2012). “5 Writ relief A writ of prohibition may issue to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the jurisdiction of the district court.”
Cote v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 175 P.3d 906 (Nev. 2008). “170; NRS 34.330. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222 , 88 P.”
Show all 328 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.