NRS
37.120 Assessment of compensation and damages: Date of valuation; exception;
just compensation.
1. To assess compensation and damages as
provided in NRS 37.110, the date of the
first service of the summons is the date of valuation, except that, if the action
is not tried within 2 years after the date of the first service of the summons,
and the court makes a written finding that the delay is caused primarily by the
plaintiff or is caused by congestion or backlog in the calendar of the court,
the date of valuation is the date of the actual commencement of the trial. If a
new trial is ordered by a court, the date of valuation used in the new trial
must be the date of valuation used in the original trial.
2. No improvements put upon the property
after the date of the service of the summons may be included in the assessment
of compensation or damages, regardless of the date of valuation.
3. In all actions in eminent domain, the
court shall award just compensation to the owner of the property that is being
taken. Just compensation is that sum of money necessary to place the property
owner in the same position monetarily as if the property had never been taken,
excluding any governmental offsets except special benefits. Special benefits
may only offset severance damages and may not offset the value for the
property. Just compensation for the property taken by the exercise of eminent
domain must include, without limitation, interest computed pursuant to NRS 37.175 and reasonable costs and
expenses, except attorney’s fees, incurred by the owner of the property that is
the subject of the action.
4. As used in this section, “primarily”
means the greater amount, quantity or quality of acts of the plaintiff or the
defendant or, if there is more than one defendant, the total delay caused by
all the defendants, that would cause the date of the trial to be continued past
2 years after the date of the first service of the summons.
[1911 CPA § 675; RL § 5617; NCL § 9164]—(NRS A 1965,
686; 1991,
1641; 1993,
526; 1999,
3533; 2007,
336)
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., Ltd., 72 P.3d 954 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 8× “We note, though, that we have stated that in addition to the benefit of the inflated value pursuant to NRS 37.120(1), the condemnee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the taking because the condemnee "has still been deprived of the use of the proceeds that…”
Cnty. of Clark v. Alper, 685 P.2d 943 (Nev. 1984).
· cites it 9× “Thus the district court did not err in applying *392 NRS 37.120(1 )(b) in valuing the Alper parcel at the time of the trial.”
State, Dep't. of Transp. v. Cowan, 103 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The fair market value of the business must be calculated as of the date of condemnation as set forth in NRS 37.120(1). The condemnation occurred in November 1999.”
Manke v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cnty., 710 P.2d 80 (Nev. 1985).
· cites it 6× “NRS 37.120(1) provides that, for purposes of compensation and damages, condemned property is valued as of the date of the service of summons.”
City of Elko v. Zillich, 683 P.2d 5 (Nev. 1984).
“NRS 37.120 requires the measure of compensation to be based upon the value of the land taken on the date of service of the summons.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Highways v. Alper, 706 P.2d 139 (Nev. 1985).
· cites it 2× “8 NRS 37.120 provides, in pertinent part: (b) In any action commenced after April 4, 1965, in which the issue is not tried within 2 years after the date of commencement of the action, unless the delay is caused primarily by the defendant, the right to compensation and damages…”
Gold Ridge Partners v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 285 P.3d 1059 (Nev. 2012).
“110; NRS 37.120. Following the determination of damages, the court enters a “judgment determining the right to condemn [the] property and fixing the amount of compensation to be paid by the plaintiff.”
City of Las Vegas v. 180 Land Co., LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 29 (Nev. 2024).
· cites it 5× “The City argues that NRS 37.120 only applies in eminent domain actions and that the district court's ruling was otherwise arbitrary because the City denied the application regarding the 35 acres on SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 27 (0) 1947A June 21, 2017, not September 14.”
City of N. Las Vegas v. 5th & Centennial, 2014 NV 66 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “When reviewing the district court's calculation of interest, this court agreed that the constitutionally required "just compensation" includes interest from the date of the taking and held that the district court erred in calculating interest from the date of judgment, noting…”
City of N. Las Vegas v. 5th & Centennial, 2014 NV 66 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “When reviewing the district court's calculation of interest, this court agreed that the constitutionally required "just compensation" includes interest from the date of the taking and held that the district court erred in calculating interest from the date of judgment, noting…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.120(1) — 8 cases
Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., Ltd., 72 P.3d 954 (Nev. 2003).
“We note, though, that we have stated that in addition to the benefit of the inflated value pursuant to NRS 37.120(1), the condemnee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the taking because the condemnee "has still been deprived of the use of the proceeds that…”
State, Dep't. of Transp. v. Cowan, 103 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2004).
“The fair market value of the business must be calculated as of the date of condemnation as set forth in NRS 37.120(1). The condemnation occurred in November 1999.”
Manke v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cnty., 710 P.2d 80 (Nev. 1985).
“NRS 37.120(1) provides that, for purposes of compensation and damages, condemned property is valued as of the date of the service of summons.”
City of Las Vegas v. 180 Land Co., LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 29 (Nev. 2024).
“The City argues that NRS 37.120 only applies in eminent domain actions and that the district court's ruling was otherwise arbitrary because the City denied the application regarding the 35 acres on SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 27 (0) 1947A June 21, 2017, not September 14.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.120(1)(b) — 1 case
Cnty. of Clark v. Alper, 685 P.2d 943 (Nev. 1984).
“Thus the district court did not err in applying *392 NRS 37.120(1 )(b) in valuing the Alper parcel at the time of the trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.120(2) — 1 case
Manke v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cnty., 710 P.2d 80 (Nev. 1985).
“NRS 37.120(1) provides that, for purposes of compensation and damages, condemned property is valued as of the date of the service of summons.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.120(3) — 4 cases
Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., Ltd., 72 P.3d 954 (Nev. 2003).
“We note, though, that we have stated that in addition to the benefit of the inflated value pursuant to NRS 37.120(1), the condemnee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the taking because the condemnee "has still been deprived of the use of the proceeds that…”
City of N. Las Vegas v. 5th & Centennial, 2014 NV 66 (Nev. 2014).
“When reviewing the district court's calculation of interest, this court agreed that the constitutionally required "just compensation" includes interest from the date of the taking and held that the district court erred in calculating interest from the date of judgment, noting…”
City of N. Las Vegas v. 5th & Centennial, 2014 NV 66 (Nev. 2014).
“When reviewing the district court's calculation of interest, this court agreed that the constitutionally required "just compensation" includes interest from the date of the taking and held that the district court erred in calculating interest from the date of judgment, noting…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 37.120(l)(b) — 2 cases
Cnty. of Clark v. Alper, 685 P.2d 943 (Nev. 1984).
“Thus the district court did not err in applying *392 NRS 37.120(1 )(b) in valuing the Alper parcel at the time of the trial.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Highways v. Alper, 706 P.2d 139 (Nev. 1985).
“8 NRS 37.120 provides, in pertinent part: (b) In any action commenced after April 4, 1965, in which the issue is not tried within 2 years after the date of commencement of the action, unless the delay is caused primarily by the defendant, the right to compensation and damages…”
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.