Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 52 - DOCUMENTARY AND OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.255 (2026)

Admissibility of other evidence of contents

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 52.255  Admissibility of other evidence of contents.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 52.247, the original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording or photograph is admissible, if:

      1.  All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the loss or destruction resulted from the fraudulent act of the proponent;

      2.  No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure;

      3.  At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, that party was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearing, and that party does not produce the original at the hearing; or

      4.  The writing, recording or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 801; A 1995, 182; 1997, 1593)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Young v. Nevada Title Co., 744 P.2d 902 (Nev. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Young v. Nevada Title Co., 744 P.2d 902 (Nev. 1987). “245 allows duplicates to be admitted and NRS 52.255 provides for the admissibility of other evidence of contents.”
Lagrange Constr., Inc. v. KENT Corp., 496 P.2d 766 (Nev. 1972). “As stated by McCormick, “The rule is this: in proving the terms of a writing, where such terms are material, the original writing must be produced, unless it is shown to be unavailable for some reason other than the serious fault of the proponent.”
Tomlinson v. State, 878 P.2d 311 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 9× “However, NRS 52.255 sets forth the limited circumstances in which the court can admit other evidence to prove the contents of the original.”
Ross v. Williams (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 2× “Under these circumstances, we conclude that NRS 52.255(1) was satisfied and there was no 23 violation of Ross’ substantial rights.”
Ross (Ronald) v. State (Nev. 2014). “Moreover, even had counsel objected to testimony about the video, the law of the case is that the best-evidence- rule exception in NRS 52.255(1) was satisfied. Ross v. State, Docket No.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.255(1) — 3 cases
Ross v. Williams (D. Nev. 2024). “Under these circumstances, we conclude that NRS 52.255(1) was satisfied and there was no 23 violation of Ross’ substantial rights.”
Tomlinson v. State, 878 P.2d 311 (Nev. 1994). “However, NRS 52.255 sets forth the limited circumstances in which the court can admit other evidence to prove the contents of the original.”
Ross (Ronald) v. State (Nev. 2014). “Moreover, even had counsel objected to testimony about the video, the law of the case is that the best-evidence- rule exception in NRS 52.255(1) was satisfied. Ross v. State, Docket No.”
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.