NRS
37.070 Contents of complaint; inclusion of separate parcels in same or
separate proceedings.
1. The complaint must contain:
(a) The name of the court in which the action is
commenced.
(b) The name of the corporation, partnership,
association, commission or person in charge of the public use for which the
property is sought, who must be styled plaintiff.
(c) The names of all owners, occupants and
claimants of the property, if known, or a statement that they are unknown, who
must be styled defendants.
(d) A statement of the right of the plaintiff.
(e) If a right-of-way is sought, the complaint
must show the location, general route and termini, and must be accompanied with
a map thereof, so far as the right-of-way is involved in the action or
proceeding.
(f) A description of each piece of land sought to
be taken, and whether it includes the whole or only part of an entire parcel or
tract.
2. All parcels lying in the county and
required for the same public use may be included in the same or separate proceedings,
at the option of the plaintiff, but the court may consolidate or separate them
to suit the conveniences of parties. Each defendant, at the defendant’s option,
may have a separate trial.
[1911 CPA § 670; RL § 5612; NCL § 9159]—(NRS A 1989,
548; 1991,
456)
Notes of Decisions
City of N. Las Vegas v. Dist. Ct. (5th & Brooks, LLC) (2017)
nev · cites it 6×
“The majority focuses on CNLV's contention that, pursuant to NRS 37.070, the district court does not have the authority to bifurcate the trial for each of the defendants because they jointly owned one legal parcel in existence at the time CNLV filed its complaint.”
Sharples v. State, Dep't of Transp. C/W 73628 (2018)
nev
“1 Indeed, the Legislature does not set forth such a requirement, see NRS 37.070(1) (prescribing the six requirements the complaint must contain), and "[t]his court has repeatedly refused to imply provisions not expressly included in the legislative scheme," Zenor v.”
Sharples v. State, Dep't of Transp. C/W 73628 (2018)
nev
“1 Indeed, the Legislature does not set forth such a requirement, see NRS 37.070(1) (prescribing the six requirements the complaint must contain), and "[t]his court has repeatedly refused to imply provisions not expressly included in the legislative scheme," Zenor v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.070(1) — 2 cases
Sharples v. State, Dep't of Transp. C/W 73628 (2018)
nev
“1 Indeed, the Legislature does not set forth such a requirement, see NRS 37.070(1) (prescribing the six requirements the complaint must contain), and "[t]his court has repeatedly refused to imply provisions not expressly included in the legislative scheme," Zenor v.”
Sharples v. State, Dep't of Transp. C/W 73628 (2018)
nev
“1 Indeed, the Legislature does not set forth such a requirement, see NRS 37.070(1) (prescribing the six requirements the complaint must contain), and "[t]his court has repeatedly refused to imply provisions not expressly included in the legislative scheme," Zenor v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.070(2) — 2 cases
City of N. Las Vegas v. Dist. Ct. (5th & Brooks, LLC) (2017)
nev
“The majority focuses on CNLV's contention that, pursuant to NRS 37.070, the district court does not have the authority to bifurcate the trial for each of the defendants because they jointly owned one legal parcel in existence at the time CNLV filed its complaint.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.070(3) — 1 case
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.