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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.110

Ascertainment and assessment of damages

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 37.110  Ascertainment and assessment of damages.  The court, jury, commissioners or master must hear such legal testimony as may be offered by any of the parties to the proceedings, and thereupon must ascertain and assess:

      1.  The value of the property sought to be condemned and all improvements thereon pertaining to the realty, and of each and every separate estate or interest therein; if it consists of different parcels, the value of each parcel and of each estate or interest therein shall be separately assessed.

      2.  If the property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a large parcel, the damages which will accrue to the portion not sought to be condemned, by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned, and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed by the plaintiff.

      3.  If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, the amount of such damages.

      4.  Separately, how much the portion not sought to be condemned, and each estate or interest therein, will be benefited, if at all, by the construction of the improvement proposed by the plaintiff; and if the benefit shall be equal to the damages assessed, under subsection 2 of this section, the owner of the parcel shall be allowed no compensation except the value of the portion taken; but if the benefit shall be less than the damages so assessed, the former shall be deducted from the latter, and the remainder shall be the only damages allowed in addition to the value of the portion taken.

      5.  If the property sought to be condemned be for a railroad, the cost of good and sufficient fences along the line of such railroad between such railroad and other adjoining lands of the defendant; and the costs of cattle guards where fences may cross the line of such railroads.

Ê As far as practicable, compensation must be assessed for each source of damages separately.

      [1911 CPA § 674; RL § 5616; NCL § 9163]

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1959–2018 · leading case: County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, Ltd.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, Ltd. (2003) nev · cites it 4× “[11] Regarding the evidence that the trier of fact must consider in a condemnation action, NRS 37.110, which is titled "Ascertainment and assessment of damages," provides in pertinent part: The court, jury, commissioners or master must hear such legal testimony as may be offered…”
Sloat v. Turner (1977) nev · cites it 4× “Respondents have cross-appealed for reversal urging first that the lower court erred in holding that a prescriptive easement had actually been acquired, and second, that NRS 37.110(3) which provides for compensation even when there is not an actual taking of the property does…”
M & R Investment Co. v. State (1987) nev · cites it 2× “2d 813 (1968); NRS 37.110.' Severance damages will not be awarded for injury to separate and independent parcels owned by the condemnee.”
City of Las Vegas v. Bustos (2003) nev “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, if the property is subject to condemnation as a result of a public work or public improvement, any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the property before the date of valuation which is caused by: » (a) The public work…”
Probasco v. City of Reno (1969) nev · cites it 2× “” and, more particularly, because of NRS 37.110(3) which commands the assessment of damages “If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement.”
Meredith v. Washoe County School District (1968) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 37.110. Reversed and remanded. Thompson, C.”
City of North Las Vegas v. Robinson (2006) nev “See NRS 37.110(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.”
State ex rel. Nevada Department of Transportation v. Las Vegas Building Materials, Inc. (1988) nev · cites it 4× “NRS 37.110 in pertinent part provides: The .”
Urban Renewal Agency of City of Reno v. Iacometti (1963) nev “The rights of the respondents will be constitutionally satisfied when they receive just compensation for their properties.”
Schwartz v. State (1995) nev · cites it 3× “110(3) provides that the following must be ascertained and assessed: “If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, the amount of such damages.”
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Linnecke (1970) nev “Nevada provides for severance damages in condemnation cases by NRS 37.110: “The court, jury, commissioners or masters must hear such legal testimony as may be offered by any of the parties to the proceedings, and thereupon must ascertain and assess: “2.”
Andrews v. Kingsbury General Improvement District No. 2 (1968) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 37.110. 3 The burden rests with the owner to prove such damages.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.110(2) — 4 cases
City of North Las Vegas v. Robinson (2006) nev “See NRS 37.110(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.”
Schwartz v. State (1995) nev “110(3) provides that the following must be ascertained and assessed: “If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, the amount of such damages.”
Sharples v. State, Dep't of Transp. C/W 73628 (2018) nev
Sharples v. State, Dep't of Transp. C/W 73628 (2018) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.110(3) — 5 cases
Sloat v. Turner (1977) nev “Respondents have cross-appealed for reversal urging first that the lower court erred in holding that a prescriptive easement had actually been acquired, and second, that NRS 37.110(3) which provides for compensation even when there is not an actual taking of the property does…”
Probasco v. City of Reno (1969) nev “” and, more particularly, because of NRS 37.110(3) which commands the assessment of damages “If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement.”
Meredith v. Washoe County School District (1968) nev “NRS 37.110. Reversed and remanded. Thompson, C.”
State ex rel. Nevada Department of Transportation v. Las Vegas Building Materials, Inc. (1988) nev “NRS 37.110 in pertinent part provides: The .”
Schwartz v. State (1995) nev “110(3) provides that the following must be ascertained and assessed: “If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, the amount of such damages.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.110(4) — 1 case
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Haapanen (1968) 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.