NRS
41.036 Filing tort claim against State with Attorney General; filing
tort claim against political subdivision with governing body; review and
investigation by Attorney General of tort claim against State; regulations by
State Board of Examiners.
1. Each person who has a claim against the
State or any of its agencies arising out of a tort must file the claim within 2
years after the time the cause of action accrues with the Attorney General.
2. Each person who has a claim against any
political subdivision of the State arising out of a tort must file the claim
within 2 years after the time the cause of action accrues with the governing
body of that political subdivision.
3. The filing of a claim in tort against
the State or a political subdivision as required by subsections 1 and 2 is not
a condition precedent to bringing an action pursuant to NRS 41.031.
4. The Attorney General shall, if
authorized by regulations adopted by the State Board of Examiners pursuant to
subsection 6, approve, settle or deny each claim that is:
(a) Filed pursuant to subsection 1; and
(b) Not required to be passed upon by the
Legislature.
5. If the Attorney General is not
authorized to approve, settle or deny a claim filed pursuant to subsection 1,
the Attorney General shall investigate the claim and submit a report of
findings to the State Board of Examiners concerning that claim.
6. The State Board of Examiners shall
adopt regulations that specify:
(a) The type of claim that the Attorney General
is required to approve, settle or deny pursuant to subsection 4; and
(b) The procedure to be used by the Attorney
General to approve, settle or deny that claim.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
1414; A 1969,
1117; 1979,
629; 1981,
1885; 1983,
103; 1993,
1502; 1997,
280)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case:
Turner v. Staggs, 510 P.2d 879 (Nev. 1973).
Turner v. Staggs, 510 P.2d 879 (Nev. 1973).
· cites it 8× “031 and NRS 41.036. On August 25, 1971, the complaint against Jack Staggs was dismissed pursuant to NRCP 41(b).”
Kaminski Ex Rel. Kaminski v. Woodbury, 462 P.2d 45 (Nev. 1969).
· cites it 10× “Although the trial court gives no specific reason for granting the summary judgment to the school district, it is presumed that it was upon the grounds that the notice of claim was not timely filed in accordance with NRS 41.036. [1] This appeal is taken from the granting of the…”
Williams v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 50 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 2× “State , [3] we applied NRCP 6(a) to calculate the time under a statute requiring tort claims against the state to be brought within six months (NRS 41.036). More importantly, however, we overruled Kirk v.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health v. Capital Convalescent Ctr., Inc., 547 P.2d 677 (Nev. 1976).
· cites it 3× “First State claims that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the case, because Convalescent failed to comply with NRS 41.036 5 and NRS 353.085. 6 We do not believe that the aforementioned statutes have any application in the instant.”
Rogers v. State, 455 P.2d 172 (Nev. 1969).
· cites it 4× “” NRS 41.036 is, one, a statute and, two, applicable since it directs the filing of a claim with the state.”
Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Cnty. of Clark, 643 F. Supp. 93 (D. Nev. 1986).
· cites it 4× “In 1980 when Briscoe commenced this action and asserted its breach of contract claims in its counterclaim in reply, NRS 41.036 (later amended 1981 Stats, p. 1885 and 1983 Stats, p.”
Jiminez v. State of Nevada, Nevada Dep't of Prisons, 644 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1982).
· cites it 4× “That decision invalidated the notice of claims provision of NRS 41.036. 3 Although Turner is silent concerning the issue of disparate statutes of limitations, NRS 11.”
Romaine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 485 P.2d 102 (Nev. 1971).
· cites it 2× “In Rogers , we stated: “NRS 41.036 is, one, a statute and, two, applicable since it directs the filing of a claim with the state.”
Derouen v. City of Reno, 491 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1971).
· cites it 2× “After the respondent answered it filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that appellant’s claim was barred by NRS 41.036(1) 1 because he had not complied with NRS 268.”
Uthman v. Magnetek, Inc. (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 20× “In response, Plaintiff argues that there was no fraudulent joinder 2 because (1) the alleged deadline in Nevada Revised Statute § 41.036 had not run at the time the 3 complaint was filed, and (2) there is a possibility that the Nevada Supreme Court would reverse 4 the state…”
Carvajal v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 13× “036(2), it has consistently 12 held that statutes setting forth explicit time restrictions are generally mandatory and that 13 substantial compliance with those statutes will not suffice—particularly when the statute, as here, 14 15 90 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.036 (2). 16 91 In…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.036(1) — 3 cases
Derouen v. City of Reno, 491 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1971).
“After the respondent answered it filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that appellant’s claim was barred by NRS 41.036(1) 1 because he had not complied with NRS 268.”
Kaminski Ex Rel. Kaminski v. Woodbury, 462 P.2d 45 (Nev. 1969).
“Although the trial court gives no specific reason for granting the summary judgment to the school district, it is presumed that it was upon the grounds that the notice of claim was not timely filed in accordance with NRS 41.036. [1] This appeal is taken from the granting of the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.036(2) — 21 cases
Rogers v. State, 455 P.2d 172 (Nev. 1969).
“” NRS 41.036 is, one, a statute and, two, applicable since it directs the filing of a claim with the state.”
Uthman v. Magnetek, Inc. (D. Nev. 2023).
“In response, Plaintiff argues that there was no fraudulent joinder 2 because (1) the alleged deadline in Nevada Revised Statute § 41.036 had not run at the time the 3 complaint was filed, and (2) there is a possibility that the Nevada Supreme Court would reverse 4 the state…”
Romaine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 485 P.2d 102 (Nev. 1971).
“In Rogers , we stated: “NRS 41.036 is, one, a statute and, two, applicable since it directs the filing of a claim with the state.”
Carvajal v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't (D. Nev. 2021).
“036(2), it has consistently 12 held that statutes setting forth explicit time restrictions are generally mandatory and that 13 substantial compliance with those statutes will not suffice—particularly when the statute, as here, 14 15 90 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.036 (2). 16 91 In…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.036(3) — 2 cases
Turner v. Staggs, 510 P.2d 879 (Nev. 1973).
“031 and NRS 41.036. On August 25, 1971, the complaint against Jack Staggs was dismissed pursuant to NRCP 41(b).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.036(5) — 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.