Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 38 - MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.244 (2026)

Jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 38.244  Jurisdiction.

      1.  A court of this state having jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.

      2.  An agreement to arbitrate providing for arbitration in this state confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on an award under NRS 38.206 to 38.248, inclusive.

      (Added to NRS by 2001, 1283)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2017–2020 · leading case: Desage Vs. Aw Fin. Grp., Llc (Nev. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Desage Vs. Aw Fin. Grp., Llc (Nev. 2020). · cites it 6× “Nevada's RUAA provides for the district court's jurisdiction over enforcement matters like compelling parties to arbitrate out-of-state: "A court of this state having jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.”
Half Dental Franchise, LLC v. Houchin (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “2 Comparing jurisdiction by in-state service to arbitral jurisdiction, Half Dental argues that NRS 38.244 establishes jurisdiction as a matter of law based on consent.”
Half Dental Franchise, LLC v. Houchin (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “2 Comparing jurisdiction by in-state service to arbitral jurisdiction, Half Dental argues that NRS 38.244 establishes jurisdiction as a matter of law based on consent.”
Pinnacle Minerals Corp. v. Whitehead, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “The most supporting of Plaintiff's position is § 38.244(2) which provides that "[a]n agreement to arbitrate providing for arbitration in this state confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on an award under NRS [§] 38.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.244(1) — 1 case
Desage Vs. Aw Fin. Grp., Llc (Nev. 2020). “Nevada's RUAA provides for the district court's jurisdiction over enforcement matters like compelling parties to arbitrate out-of-state: "A court of this state having jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.244(2) — 4 cases
Desage Vs. Aw Fin. Grp., Llc (Nev. 2020). “Nevada's RUAA provides for the district court's jurisdiction over enforcement matters like compelling parties to arbitrate out-of-state: "A court of this state having jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.”
Pinnacle Minerals Corp. v. Whitehead, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (D. Nev. 2019). “The most supporting of Plaintiff's position is § 38.244(2) which provides that "[a]n agreement to arbitrate providing for arbitration in this state confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on an award under NRS [§] 38.”
Half Dental Franchise, LLC v. Houchin (Nev. 2017). “2 Comparing jurisdiction by in-state service to arbitral jurisdiction, Half Dental argues that NRS 38.244 establishes jurisdiction as a matter of law based on consent.”
Half Dental Franchise, LLC v. Houchin (Nev. 2017). “2 Comparing jurisdiction by in-state service to arbitral jurisdiction, Half Dental argues that NRS 38.244 establishes jurisdiction as a matter of law based on consent.”
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.