Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

NRS 179.1164

Property subject to seizure and forfeiture; exceptions

Known as the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act

The act spans §§ 179–179 (161 sections).

Applied in 4 court decisions — leading case Levingston v. Washoe County (1996)

Most recently applied in Monroe v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't (April 2018)

(Added to NRS by 1987, 1380; A 1989, 1235; 1991, 209, 2286, 2288; 1995, 2534; 2001, 1066; 2003, 562; 2005, 1198)

How often courts cite this section

199620002010201820
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the following property is subject to seizure and forfeiture in a proceeding for forfeiture:

(a) Any proceeds attributable to the commission or attempted commission of any felony.

(b) Any property or proceeds otherwise subject to forfeiture pursuant to NRS 179.121, 200.760, 202.257, 370.419, 453.301 or 501.3857.

2. Property may not, to the extent of the interest of any claimant, be declared forfeited by reason of an act or omission shown to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge, consent or willful blindness of the claimant.

3. Unless the owner of real property or a mobile home:

(a) Has given the tenant notice to surrender the premises pursuant to NRS 40.254 within 90 days after the owner receives notice of a conviction pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 453.305; or

(b) Shows the court that the owner had good cause not to evict the tenant summarily pursuant to NRS 40.254,

Ê the owner of real property or a mobile home used or intended for use by a tenant to facilitate any violation of the provisions of NRS 453.011 to 453.552, inclusive, except NRS 453.336, is disputably presumed to have known of and consented to that use if the notices required by NRS 453.305 have been given in connection with another such violation relating to the property or mobile home. The holder of a lien or encumbrance on the property or mobile home is disputably presumed to have acquired an interest in the property for fair value and without knowledge or consent to such use, regardless of when the act giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.

Official source: Nevada Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nevada statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.