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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.780

Applicability of Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; discovery

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.780  Applicability of Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; discovery.

      1.  The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with NRS 34.360 to 34.830, inclusive, apply to proceedings pursuant to NRS 34.720 to 34.830, inclusive.

      2.  After the writ has been granted and a date set for the hearing, a party may invoke any method of discovery available under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge or justice for good cause shown grants leave to do so.

      3.  A request for discovery which is available under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure must be accompanied by a statement of the interrogatories or requests for admission and a list of any documents sought to be produced.

      (Added to NRS by 1985, 1231; A 1987, 1219; 1991, 87; 2023, 1630)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Means v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Means v. State (2004) nev “NRS 34.780 incorporates the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in post-conviction habeas proceedings to the extent that those rules do not conflict with NRS 34.”
Mazzan v. State (1993) nev · cites it 4× “, NRS 34.780. Appellant argues that these changes *1073 make clear the legislature’s “obvious intent” that post-conviction habeas proceed “in all respects” as would a civil action.”
State v. Powell (2006) nev “NRS 34.780(1). Mazzan v. State, 109 Nev. 1067, 1070 , 863 P.”
Byford v. State (2007) nev “See NRS 34.780(1) (the NRCP are applicable to postconviction habeas proceedings to the extent they are not inconsistent with NRS 34.”
Klein v. Warden, Ely State Prison (2002) nev “830, and NRAP 4(b). See NRS 34.726(1) (providing that in the absence of a showing of good cause for the delay and prejudice, a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed within one year after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal); NRS 34.”
Beets v. State (1994) nev ““[Tjhe provisions of NRS 34.780 expressly limit the extent to which civil rules govern post-conviction habeas proceedings.”
Esquivel v. State of Nevada (2019) nvd · cites it 2× “8 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.780 . If the Court allowed discovery to proceed on completely unexhausted 9 grounds and then stayed the action to allow Esquivel to exhaust those grounds in state court, then 10 the Court would be creating the incentives for inefficiency that Tamayo-Reyes…”
Lundy v. Balaam (2021) nvd · cites it 2× “, Habeas Rule 12; NRS § 34.780(1). 22 That is why, inter alia, this Court required service on Respondents under Rule 4 of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Moore (Evan) v. State (2016) nev “" NRS 34.780(1). Under NRCP 41(e), if an action is not brought to trial within five years, 'In addition to vacating the order granting the State's motion to dismiss, we direct the district court to consider Moore's motion to appoint counsel pursuant to NRS 34.”
Middleton (David) v. Warden (Death Penalty-Pc) (2022) nev “See NRS 34.780(2) ("After the writ has been granted and a date set for the hearing, a party may invoke any method of discovery available under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge or justice for good cause shown grants leave to do so.”
Agavo (Reynaldo) v. State (2013) nev “Even assuming, without deciding, that a motion pursuant to NRCP 60(b) is applicable in a post-conviction proceeding, see NRS 34.780(1) (stating that the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings for post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus to the extent…”
Chavez (Jafet) v. State (2013) nev “"); see also NRS 34.780(1) (stating that the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings for post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus to the extent they are not inconsistent with NRS Chapter 34).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.780(1) — 10 cases
State v. Powell (2006) nev “NRS 34.780(1). Mazzan v. State, 109 Nev. 1067, 1070 , 863 P.”
Byford v. State (2007) nev “See NRS 34.780(1) (the NRCP are applicable to postconviction habeas proceedings to the extent they are not inconsistent with NRS 34.”
Klein v. Warden, Ely State Prison (2002) nev “830, and NRAP 4(b). See NRS 34.726(1) (providing that in the absence of a showing of good cause for the delay and prejudice, a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed within one year after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal); NRS 34.”
Mazzan v. State (1993) nev “, NRS 34.780. Appellant argues that these changes *1073 make clear the legislature’s “obvious intent” that post-conviction habeas proceed “in all respects” as would a civil action.”
Lundy v. Balaam (2021) nvd “, Habeas Rule 12; NRS § 34.780(1). 22 That is why, inter alia, this Court required service on Respondents under Rule 4 of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.780(2) — 2 cases
Middleton (David) v. Warden (Death Penalty-Pc) (2022) nev “See NRS 34.780(2) ("After the writ has been granted and a date set for the hearing, a party may invoke any method of discovery available under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge or justice for good cause shown grants leave to do so.”
Bradford (Julius) v. State (2013) 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.