Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.585 (2026)

Continuation of corporation after dissolution for winding up and liquidating its business and affairs; limitation on actions by or against dissolved corporation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 78.585  Continuation of corporation after dissolution for winding up and liquidating its business and affairs; limitation on actions by or against dissolved corporation.

      1.  The dissolution of a corporation does not impair any remedy or cause of action available to or against it or its directors, officers or stockholders commenced within 2 years after the date of the dissolution with respect to any remedy or cause of action in which the plaintiff learns, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have learned of, the underlying facts on or before the date of dissolution, or within 3 years after the date of dissolution with respect to any other remedy or cause of action. Any such remedy or cause of action not commenced within the applicable period is barred. The corporation continues as a body corporate for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits, actions, proceedings and claims of any kind or character by or against it and of enabling it gradually to settle and close its business, to collect its assets, to collect and discharge its obligations, to dispose of and convey its property, to distribute its money and other property among the stockholders, after paying or adequately providing for the payment of its liabilities and obligations, and to do every other act to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs, but not for the purpose of continuing the business for which it was established.

      2.  Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to lengthen any shorter statute of limitations otherwise applicable provided that no provision of this chapter or other specific statute has the effect of applying any statute of limitations that is longer than provided for in this section with respect to any such remedy or cause of action. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create any remedy or cause of action available to or against the corporation or its directors, officers or stockholders.

      [65:177:1925]—(NRS A 1949, 170; 1955, 165; 1985, 1793; 2011, 2791; 2013, 1273)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 97 P.3d 1132 (Nev. 2004).
Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 97 P.3d 1132 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 22× “Beazer contends that it dissolved as a corporate entity more than two years before the underlying construction defect complaints were filed and that the complaints are therefore barred under NRS 78.585. The Homeowners contend that the statute only bars actions that arise before…”
Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 265 P.3d 673 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 12× “After the dissolution, certain American West directors, including petitioner Lawrence Canarelli, remained as trustees pursuant to NRS 78.585 and participated in winding up corporate affairs.”
Desert Fireplaces Plus, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 97 P.3d 607 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 11× “OPINION Per Curiam: In this original writ proceeding, we address two issues involving two-year statute of limitations under NRS 78.585 for commencing a cause of action against a dissolved corporation for claims arising before the dissolution.”
Marquis & Aurbach v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 146 P.3d 1130 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “3d 1132 (2004) (applying a de novo standard to review district court constructions of NRS 78.585 in the course of resolving an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition).”
Aa Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 245 P.3d 1190 (Nev. 2010). “175 and NRS 78.585). We leave for another day the significance, if any, of the language differences between the corporations code and the limited liability company statutes concerning the proceedings that may be had following charter revocation.”
Soo Line R.R. Ex Rel. Minnesota v. B.J. Carney & Co., 797 F. Supp. 1472 (D. Minnesota 1992). · cites it 2× “The corporation at issue in this case was organized under the laws of the state of Nevada.”
Clipper Air Cargo, Inc. v. Aviation Prods. Int'l, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 956 (D.S.C. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under Nevada law, those transactions include disposing of and conveying its property, collecting and discharging its obligations, distributing its assets, and “prosecuting and defending suits, actions, proceedings, and claims of any kind or character by or against it____” Nev.”
Deal v. 999 Lakeshore Ass'n, 579 P.2d 775 (Nev. 1978). “4 Deal has also raised the identical issues with regard to amendment of the pleadings, relation back, and the statute of limitations with regard to statutory trustee liability under NRS 78.585(1), NRS 78.590(1), and NRS 78.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Omics Grp. Inc., 374 F. Supp. 3d 994 (D. Nev. 2019). “§ 78.585 ; Del. Code tit. 6 § 18-804. The FTC moves for judicial notice of archived web pages pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.”
Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc., 995 F.3d 969 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.585 . Case: 20-1167 Document: 75 Page: 20 Filed: 04/21/2021 20 MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v.”
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022). “because NRS 78.585 "was- patterned after Section, 105 of the .”
Lewis v. LeBaron, 254 Cal. App. 2d 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). “The effect of our holding already asserted is to nullify the judicial sale. Title to the real property is in the corporation.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.585(1) — 2 cases
Deal v. 999 Lakeshore Ass'n, 579 P.2d 775 (Nev. 1978). “4 Deal has also raised the identical issues with regard to amendment of the pleadings, relation back, and the statute of limitations with regard to statutory trustee liability under NRS 78.585(1), NRS 78.590(1), and NRS 78.”
Sherman Gardens Co. v. Longley, 491 P.2d 48 (Nev. 1971).
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.