Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.240 (2026)

Conclusive presumptions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 47.240 Conclusive presumptions. The following presumptions, and no others, are conclusive:

1. A malicious and guilty intent, from the deliberate commission of an unlawful act, for the purpose of injuring another.

2. The truth of the fact recited, from the recital in a written instrument between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest by a subsequent title, but this rule does not apply to the recital of a consideration.

3. Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, the party cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.

4. A tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation.

5. The judgment or order of a court, when declared by titles 2, 3 and 6 of NRS to be conclusive; but such judgment or order must be alleged in the pleadings if there is an opportunity to do so; if there is no such opportunity, the judgment or order may be used as evidence.

6. Any other presumption which, by statute, is expressly made conclusive.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 779)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada v. Daniels, 145 P.3d 1024 (Nev. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada v. Daniels, 145 P.3d 1024 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “[14] See NRS 47.240(6) (stating that a statute can create a conclusive presumption).”

Clark v. State, 588 P.2d 1027 (Nev. 1979). “The presumption is a disputable one (NRS 47.240, 47.250) and its effect in a criminal action is governed by NRS 47.”

Flangas v. State, 760 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1988). · cites it 3× “The district court held that because of NRS 47.240(2) it must be conclusively presumed that the dates on the addendum established that it was created at a time when the lessee did not have an interest in the property.”

Lera v. Sheriff, 568 P.2d 581 (Nev. 1977). “The thrust of her claim is that the procedure contravenes NRS 47.240 which, she argues, delineates a complete and exclusive list of conclusive presumptions.”

B.Y. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 32 (Nev. 2024). “While nothing in the statute indicates that the presumption is not rebuttable, see NRS 47.240 (noting that conclusive presumptions include only certain enumerated presumptions and a "presumption which, by statute, is expressly made conclusive," and no others); Presumption,…”

Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Eldorado Neighborhood Second Homeowners Ass'n (D. Nev. 2019). “But Saticoy Bay overstates the 7 application of this statutory presumption. It applies only in a dispute “as between the parties” to 8 a written document.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.240(2) — 2 cases

Flangas v. State, 760 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1988). “The district court held that because of NRS 47.240(2) it must be conclusively presumed that the dates on the addendum established that it was created at a time when the lessee did not have an interest in the property.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.240(6) — 1 case

Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada v. Daniels, 145 P.3d 1024 (Nev. 2006). “[14] See NRS 47.240(6) (stating that a statute can create a conclusive presumption).”

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.