Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 37 - EMINENT DOMAIN
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.009 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 37.009  Definitions.  As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

      1.  “Date of valuation” means the date on which the value of the property actually taken, and the damages, if any, to the remaining property, must be determined.

      2.  “Final judgment” means a judgment which cannot be directly attacked by appeal, motion for new trial or motion to vacate the judgment.

      3.  “Judgment” means the judgment determining the right to condemn property and fixing the amount of compensation to be paid by the plaintiff.

      4.  “Partnership” includes a limited partnership.

      5.  “Person” includes a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government.

      6.  “Value” means the highest price, on the date of valuation, that would be agreed to by a seller, who is willing to sell on the open market and has reasonable time to find a purchaser, and a buyer, who is ready, willing and able to buy, if both the seller and the buyer had full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. In determining value, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the property sought to be condemned must be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the entity that is taking the property. If the property is condemned primarily for a profit-making purpose, the property sought to be condemned must be valued at the use to which the entity that is condemning the property intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the property.

      (Added to NRS by 1959, 596; A 1989, 548; 1993, 525; 1995, 501; 2007, 331)

APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1960–2012 · leading case: Cnty. of Clark Ex Rel. Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Auth. v. Buckwalter, 974 P.2d 1162 (Nev. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cnty. of Clark Ex Rel. Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Auth. v. Buckwalter, 974 P.2d 1162 (Nev. 1999). · cites it 40× “The district court granted this motion, instructing the jury to award the "highest price," despite the fact that the legislature in amending NRS 37.009 had defined fair market value as the "most probable" price.”
Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., Ltd., 72 P.3d 954 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 10× “[10] NRS 37.009(6) defines fair market value as the "most probable price," which this court has held is constitutional.”
Valley Elec. Ass'n v. Overfield, 106 P.3d 1198 (Nev. 2005). “15 See NRS 37.009(3) (defining “judgment” as the “judgment determining the right to condemn property and fixing the amount of compensation to be paid by the plaintiff”).”
Gold Ridge Partners v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 285 P.3d 1059 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 5× “” 2 NRS 37.009(2). Within 30 days after entry of the final judgment, the plaintiff must deposit into court the sum of money assessed as just compensation in the condemnation proceeding.”
City of North Las Vegas v. Robinson, 134 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2006). “110(2) (treating the condemned portion and the larger parcel as a whole unit for purposes of calculating damages to the larger parcel resulting from severing the condemned portion); Alper, 100 Nev. at 389-90 , 685 P.2d at 947-49 (reversing the district court’s determination that…”
Whitacre Inv. Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 946 P.2d 191 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 4× “The second ground cited by the movants is that Justice Rose should be disqualified because in 1993 he allegedly gave an advisory opinion to legislators when they were considering an amendment to NRS 37.009, the section that defines the term “value” to be used in eminent domain…”
Heidenreich v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 352 P.2d 249 (Nev. 1960). · cites it 2× “Section 37.009, in defining the terms used in tlie chapter, says that “judgment” means the judgment determining the right to condemn property “and fixing the amount of compensation to be paid by the plaintiff.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.009(2) — 1 case
Gold Ridge Partners v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 285 P.3d 1059 (Nev. 2012). “” 2 NRS 37.009(2). Within 30 days after entry of the final judgment, the plaintiff must deposit into court the sum of money assessed as just compensation in the condemnation proceeding.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.009(3) — 2 cases
Valley Elec. Ass'n v. Overfield, 106 P.3d 1198 (Nev. 2005). “15 See NRS 37.009(3) (defining “judgment” as the “judgment determining the right to condemn property and fixing the amount of compensation to be paid by the plaintiff”).”
Gold Ridge Partners v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 285 P.3d 1059 (Nev. 2012). “” 2 NRS 37.009(2). Within 30 days after entry of the final judgment, the plaintiff must deposit into court the sum of money assessed as just compensation in the condemnation proceeding.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.009(6) — 3 cases
Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., Ltd., 72 P.3d 954 (Nev. 2003). “[10] NRS 37.009(6) defines fair market value as the "most probable price," which this court has held is constitutional.”
Cnty. of Clark Ex Rel. Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Auth. v. Buckwalter, 974 P.2d 1162 (Nev. 1999). “The district court granted this motion, instructing the jury to award the "highest price," despite the fact that the legislature in amending NRS 37.009 had defined fair market value as the "most probable" price.”
City of North Las Vegas v. Robinson, 134 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2006). “110(2) (treating the condemned portion and the larger parcel as a whole unit for purposes of calculating damages to the larger parcel resulting from severing the condemned portion); Alper, 100 Nev. at 389-90 , 685 P.2d at 947-49 (reversing the district court’s determination that…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.009(6)(b) — 1 case
Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., Ltd., 72 P.3d 954 (Nev. 2003). “[10] NRS 37.009(6) defines fair market value as the "most probable price," which this court has held is constitutional.”
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.