Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible
Applied in 62 court decisions — leading case State v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Clark (2011)
Most recently applied in ACOSTA (XAVIER) v. STATE (August 2025)
(Added to NRS by 1971, 780)
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. All relevant evidence is admissible, except:
(a) As otherwise provided by this title;
(b) As limited by the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Nevada; or
(c) Where a statute limits the review of an administrative determination to the record made or evidence offered before that tribunal.
2. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
Official source: Nevada Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nevada statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.