Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.430 (2026)
Consolidation of actions; venue
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 361.430 Burden of proof on plaintiff in action brought under NRS 361.420. In every action brought under the provisions
of NRS 361.420, the burden of proof
shall be upon the plaintiff to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that any
valuation established by the Nevada Tax Commission or the county assessor or
equalized by the county board of equalization or the State Board of
Equalization is unjust and inequitable.
[Part 11:177:1917; A 1933, 128; 1953, 576]—(NRS A 1975, 1670; 1977, 1052)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1972–2009 · leading case: In Re Tax Assessment of Foster Found.'s Woodlands Ret. Cmty., 672 S.E.2d 150 (W. Va. 2009).
In Re Tax Assessment of Foster Found.'s Woodlands Ret. Cmty., 672 S.E.2d 150 (W. Va. 2009). “'" (emphasis added) (quoting citing Nev.Rev. Stat. § 361.430) (footnote omitted)); McNally v.”
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Taxation, 843 P.2d 813 (Nev. 1992). “According to the State, the calculator method, which is based on average construction costs of typical buildings within the applicable classification, ensures a uniform *1066 and equal rate of assessment as mandated by Article 10, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution.”
Mineral Cnty. v. State, Bd. of Equalization, 119 P.3d 706 (Nev. 2005). “410(2); NRS 361.430. [7] Pittsburg Silver Peak v.”
State Ex Rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Bakst, 148 P.3d 717 (Nev. 2006). “6 NRS 361.430. 7 Imperial Palace, 108 Nev. at 1066 , 843 P.”
State ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Barta, 188 P.3d 1092 (Nev. 2008). “See also NRS 361.430 (“In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.”
Cnty. of Washoe v. Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc., 777 P.2d 358 (Nev. 1989). “NRS 361.430. 1 The taxpayer does not meet this burden unless the court finds that the state board applied a fundamentally wrong principle or refused to exercise its best judgment, or that the assessment was so excessive as to create an implication of fraud and bad faith.”
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Equalization v. Barta, 188 P.3d 1092 (Nev. 2008). “See also NRS 361.430 ("In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.”
Sun City Summerlin Cmty. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Taxation, 944 P.2d 234 (Nev. 1997). “420(4) (e) provides that a person assessed may sue on *842 the ground that “the assessment is out of proportion to and above the taxable cash value of the property assessed.” The plaintiff has the burden of proof “to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that any valuation…”
Canyon Villas Apts. Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N, 192 P.3d 746 (Nev. 2008). “3 NRS 361.430. 4 State, Bd. of Equalization v.”
Weiss v. State, 611 P.2d 212 (Nev. 1980). “That court decided that the State Board had utilized accepted methods for determining value, and that the Weisses had not proven by clear and satisfactory evidence that the valuations were unjust and inequitable.”
Nevada Tax Comm'n v. Sw. Gas Corp., 497 P.2d 308 (Nev. 1972). “That testimony was controverted by witnesses for the Commission who believed that the capitalization of income indicator of value and the stock-debt indicator were unreliable in circumstances where the income had to be imputed and the market value of the stock inferred.”
Washoe Cnty. v. John A. Dermody, Inc., 668 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1983). “Thus, although there is a presumption of validity which attaches to determinations of value made by the State Board when those determinations are properly based on independent judgment (NRS 361.430; Kelly v. State of Nevada, 91 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.