NRS
35.010 Action in name of State against public officer, association or
usurper of public office or franchise. A
civil action may be brought in the name of the State:
1. Against a person who usurps, intrudes
into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a public office, civil or military,
except the office of Assemblyman, Assemblywoman or State Senator, or a
franchise, within this state, or an officer in a corporation created by the
authority of this state.
2. Against a public officer, civil or
military, except the office of Assemblyman, Assemblywoman or State Senator, who
does or suffers an act which, by the provisions of law, works a forfeiture of
the office.
3. Against an association of persons who
act as a corporation within this state without being legally incorporated.
[1911 CPA § 714; RL § 5656; NCL § 9203]—(NRS A 1971,
660)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2021 · leading case:
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007).
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007).
· cites it 2× “7 Under NRS 35.010(1), quo warranto is appropriate to remedy an act by which a person “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a public office.”
Sec'y of State v. STATE LEGISLATURE, 93 P.3d 746 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 2× “23 NRS 35.010(1). 24 1971 Nev. Stat., ch. 371, § 1, at 660 (adding the following emphasized language to the quo warranto statute: “A civil action may be brought in thea name of the state .”
Lueck v. Teuton, 219 P.3d 895 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Quo warranto proceedings typically are governed by NRS Chapter 35, which provides for "civil actions" against persons who unlawfully hold a public office, NRS 35.010(1); see State ex rel. Holland v.”
Clark Cty. Vs. Eliason (nrap 5), 468 P.3d 817 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 4× “In contrast, NRS 35.010 permits a quo warranto action to be brought against a public official, and NRS 283.”
State v. Thompson, 511 P.2d 1043 (Nev. 1973).
“Our determination with regard to the continued vitality of NRS 193.010(16) for the purposes of ch. 197, does not mean that the 1967 enactment is without meaning.”
Eliason v. Clark Cnty., 136 Nev. 429 (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 2× “007’s forfeiture clause 10 or whether his removal from office could only occur through an NRS § 35.010 writ-quo- 11 warranto action.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 35.010(1): 3 cases
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007).
“7 Under NRS 35.010(1), quo warranto is appropriate to remedy an act by which a person “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a public office.”
Sec'y of State v. STATE LEGISLATURE, 93 P.3d 746 (Nev. 2004).
“23 NRS 35.010(1). 24 1971 Nev. Stat., ch. 371, § 1, at 660 (adding the following emphasized language to the quo warranto statute: “A civil action may be brought in thea name of the state .”
Lueck v. Teuton, 219 P.3d 895 (Nev. 2009).
“Quo warranto proceedings typically are governed by NRS Chapter 35, which provides for "civil actions" against persons who unlawfully hold a public office, NRS 35.010(1); see State ex rel. Holland v.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 35.010(2): 2 cases
Clark Cty. Vs. Eliason (nrap 5), 468 P.3d 817 (Nev. 2020).
“In contrast, NRS 35.010 permits a quo warranto action to be brought against a public official, and NRS 283.”
State v. Thompson, 511 P.2d 1043 (Nev. 1973).
“Our determination with regard to the continued vitality of NRS 193.010(16) for the purposes of ch. 197, does not mean that the 1967 enactment is without meaning.”
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.