Nev. Rev. Stat. § 4.370

Section 4.370(h) permits an unlawful-detainer action to be commenced in justice court when a landlord-tenant relationship exists.

Waugh v. Casazza · filed 1969-09-08(h)

This action for unlawful detainer was properly commenced in the justice’s court [Nev. Const. art. 6, § 8; NRS 40.410; NRS 4.370(h)] since the relationship of landlord and tenant existed.

Section 4.370 limits justice-court criminal jurisdiction to misdemeanors, unless a specific statute provides otherwise, and grants justice courts only the authority provided by statute.

Parsons v. Fifth Judicial District Court · filed 1994-11-30(1), (3)

Justice courts have only the authority granted by statute.

Section 4.370(1)(g) gives justice courts jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions.

Pickens Vs. La Villa Vegas, Inc. · filed 2021-04-29(1)(g)

Furthermore, the justice court had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, NRS 4.370(1)(g), and had the authority to resolve statutory and constitutional issues in the context of so doing, see City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Di.st. Court, 122 Nev. 1041, 1047, 146 P.3d 240, 244 (2006) (holding that the Legislature has empowered municipal courts and justice courts "with the authority to resolve constitutional questions raised!' in proceedings over which they have jurisdiction).

Section 4.370 gives the Justice Court jurisdiction over eviction actions.

Baham v. Graham · filed 2023-05-31

Rather, it appears that the Justice Court has jurisdiction over eviction actions. NRS 4.370.

Subsection 4.370(3) limits Nevada justice-court criminal jurisdiction to misdemeanors, unless a specific statute provides otherwise.

Allen v. Oliver · filed 2024-03-15(3)

In Nevada, justice courts “have jurisdiction of all misdemeanors and no other criminal offenses except as otherwise provided by specific statute.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 4.370(3). A misdemeanor in Nevada is “a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.120. Thus, any judgment of conviction entered by the Henderson Justice Court probably did not result in a 1 to 36 month sentence.

Section 4.370(1)(a) gives the justice court jurisdiction over contract actions seeking money only when the amount claimed does not exceed $300, and separate claims may be aggregated to place the action in district court.

El Ranco, Inc. v. NEW YORK MEAT AND PROVISION CO. · filed 1972-02-24(1)(a)

Because several of the sales slips were for an amount less than $300, a question is presented whether the district court had jurisdiction as to these items. NRS 4.370(1) (a) provides that the justice court shall have jurisdiction in actions arising on contract for the recovery of money only if the sum claimed does not exceed $300.

Section 4.370(3)(b) places assault-and-battery cases in justice court except when the charge alleges battery against a public officer, and “public officer” includes a police officer.

Battiato v. Sheriff · filed 1979-05-16(3)(b)

The legislature has fixed the jurisdiction of the justices’ courts as extending to cases of “[a]ssault and battery, not charged to have been committed upon a public officer in the discharge of his duties. ...” NRS 4.370(3)(b). (Emphasis added.) Since jurisdiction over the offense of battery on a public officer has not been vested in the justice’s court, by necessary implication such jurisdiction must lie in the district court. Accordingly, we now hold that original jurisdiction of the offense of misdemeanor battery on a police officer lies in the district court. ... We believe that in enacting NRS 4.370(3Xb), the legislature intended that a police officer be included within the term “public officer.”

Section 4.370(3)(c) gives justice courts jurisdiction over misdemeanors punishable by no more than a $500 fine or six months’ imprisonment, or both.

Foster v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1980-01-03(3)(c)

NRS 4.370 provides in part:

Section 4.370(3) places original jurisdiction over misdemeanors generally in the justice’s court, while a district court that properly obtains jurisdiction over a gross-misdemeanor charge retains jurisdiction to convict and sentence on a lesser-included misdemeanor.

Kimball v. State · filed 1984-03-29(3)

The original jurisdiction of the district court is in fact limited to felonies and gross misdemeanors, see Nev. Const, art. 6, § 6, and original jurisdiction over misdemeanors generally lies with the justice’s court, see NRS 4.370(3). Once a district court properly obtains original jurisdiction over a defendant by virtue of a felony or gross misdemeanor charge, however, its jurisdiction is maintained to convict and sentence on any lesser-included offense, even if that offense is a misdemeanor.

Section 4.370(3) limits justice courts to misdemeanors and other criminal offenses only when a specific statute grants jurisdiction; it does not authorize a justice court to try murder without such a statute.

Woerner v. Justice Court · filed 2000-06-05(3)

NRS 4.370(3) states that “[¡justices’ courts have jurisdiction of all misdemeanors and no other criminal offenses except as otherwise provided by specific statute.” No statute provides that the justice’s court may try a murder case.

Section 4.370(3) limits justice courts’ criminal jurisdiction to misdemeanors unless a specific statute provides otherwise.

Parsons v. State · filed 2000-10-23(3)

The criminal jurisdiction of the justices’ courts is limited to misdemeanors unless otherwise provided by specific statute. NRS 4.370(3). Thus, the justices’ courts do not have jurisdiction over gross misdemeanor or felony offenses.

Section 4.370(3) does not bar a justice of the peace serving as a district court master from accepting felony pleas in that capacity.

Roger v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. · filed 2013-04-25(3)

we conclude that justices of the peace duly appointed to serve as district court masters may take felony pleas as district court masters without conflicting with NRS 4.370(3) or otherwise violating provisions of the Nevada Constitution.

Section 4.370(1)(g) gives justices’ courts exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for possession of land and tenements when a landlord-tenant relationship exists, without a monetary limit.

K.J.B. Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court · filed 1987-11-20(g)

Subsections (g) and (h) are a part of a list of subsections providing the jurisdiction of the justices’ courts. Each subsection stands on its own without reference to the others. Significantly, subsection (g) is the only subsection that does not include a specific monetary limit. Thus, construing the statute to impose a monetary limit in subsection (g) would render nugatory the express language of the statute and would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. ... We conclude, therefore, that original jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes for possession of lands and tenements is vested exclusively in the justices’ courts.

Subsection (1)(g) places landlord-tenant possession actions with no damages claim or a damages claim under $10,000 within justice-court jurisdiction, while larger damages claims may be brought in district court.

GC Wallace, Inc. v. EIGHTH JUD. DIST. CT. · filed 2011-10-06(1)(g)

The foregoing, in connection with the wellestablished canon of statutory construction providing that statutory provisions must not be rendered superfluous, demonstrates that a landlord seeking repossession and damages has at least four options. The landlord may seek, in district court, summary eviction along with a damages claim in excess of $10,000. NRS 4.370(1)(g); see NRS 40.253(5)(a). Or, the landlord may seek, in justice court, summary eviction along with a damages claim for less than $10,000. NRS 4.370(1)(g); see NRS 40.253(5)(a).

Section 4.370(l)(g) gives justice courts jurisdiction over landlord-tenant possession actions when claimed damages do not exceed $10,000 or when no damages are claimed.

G.C. Wallace, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Clark · filed 2011-10-06(l)(g)

The foregoing, in connection with the well-established canon of statutory construction providing that statutory provisions must not be rendered superfluous, demonstrates that a landlord seeking repossession and damages has at least four options. The landlord may seek, in district court, summary eviction along with a damages claim in excess of $10,000. NRS 4.370(l)(g); see NRS 40.253(5)(a). Or, the landlord may seek, injustice court, summary eviction along with a damages claim for less than $10,000. NRS 4.370(l)(g); see NRS 40.253(5)(a).

Subsection (1)(b) gives the justices’ court exclusive jurisdiction over cases in which the damage claimed does not exceed $5,000, and attorney’s fees and costs are not included in that claimed-damages limit.

Royal Insurance v. Eagle Valley Construction, Inc. · filed 1994-02-04(1)(b)

Appellants contend on appeal that attorney’s fees and costs are included in the jurisdictional limit under NRS 4.370. Appellants thus argue that the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this case raise the amount in controversy above the jurisdictional threshold of the district court. Appellants’ contention is without support. We have previously ruled that “[a] court which is the creation of statute has only the authority given to it by the statute.” McKay v. City of Las Vegas, 106 Nev. 203, 205, 789 P.2d 584, 585 (1990). In this case, the justices’ court has exclusive jurisdiction “if the damage claimed does not exceed $5,000.” NRS 4.370(1)(b) (emphasis added). Because appellants only claim $4,208.74 in damages, the district court properly dismissed appellants’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

Section 4.370(l)(b) gives justices’ courts jurisdiction over personal-injury damages claims of $7,500 or less, leaving district courts original jurisdiction when the plaintiff claims more than $7,500.

Morrison v. Beach City LLC · filed 2000-01-26(l)(b)

NRS 4.370(l)(b) confers original jurisdiction upon justices’ courts over civil actions for damages for personal injury, if the damages claimed do not exceed $7,500.00. Thus, the district court has original jurisdiction over such actions only if the plaintiff claims more than $7,500.00 in damages.

Section 4.370(1)(b) gives justice courts jurisdiction over actions for detaining or damaging personal property valued under $10,000, leaving such claims outside district-court jurisdiction.

Stewart v. State · filed 2015-04-16(1)(b)

To the extent that appellant asserted a state tort claim for negligence, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider such a claim based on the facts alleged, as the value of the property at issue was well under $10,000. See NRS 4.370(1)(b) (justice courts have jurisdiction over actions for detaining or damaging personal property valued under $10,000); see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1) (district courts "have original jurisdiction in all cases excluded by law from the original jurisdiction of justices' courts").

Section 4.370(1)(a) gives district courts original jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000; compensatory-damages allegations not limited below that amount satisfy the jurisdictional threshold.

Crowley, Esq. v. Burke · filed 2015-09-28(1)(a)

District courts have original jurisdiction in cases where the amount of controversy exceeds $10,000. See generally Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); 2013 Nev. Stat., ch. 172, § 2, at 597 (former NRS 4.370(1)(a)-(b)). ... In her complaint, Burke stated two claims for legal malpractice against Crowley and ALS. For each claim, she sought compensatory damages in excess of $10,000, attorney fees, and punitive damages. Since Burke did not allege any facts to limit the value of the compensatory damages that she sought, she alleged sufficient compensatory damages to meet the legal certainty test. See id. Therefore, the district court properly denied Crowley and ALS's motion to dismiss.

Section 4.370(1)(b) gives justice courts original jurisdiction over actions in which the damage claimed does not exceed $10,000, and putative class-member claims may not be aggregated to move the case beyond that jurisdictional limit.

CASTILLO VS. UNITED FED. CREDIT UNION · filed 2018-02-01(1)(b)

In pertinent part, justice courts have original jurisdiction in actions where "the damage claimed does not exceed $10,000." ... Nevada, unlike other jurisdictions, recognizes that justice courts have the ability to hear class actions. See JCRCP 23. Accordingly, because class action members with small claims still have a forum to litigate, we distinguish our state from other jurisdictions and decline to aggregate individual class member claims to determine the amount necessary for the district court to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting this claim.

Section 4.370(1)(b) gives justice courts jurisdiction over breach-of-contract civil actions seeking less than $15,000 in damages.

Sun City Gaming Promotion Co. Ltd. Vs. Lu · filed 2020-04-24(1)(b)

The district court erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action. Sun City Gaming was seeking more than $15,000 in damages for Lu's breach of contract. See Nev. Const. Art. 6, § 6. (providing that district courts have jurisdiction over all actions that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the justice courts); NRS 4.370(1)(b) (explaining that justice courts have jurisdiction over civil actions for breach of contract where less than $15,000 in damages is sought).

Section 4.370(1)(b) gives Nevada justice courts jurisdiction over cases seeking damages of $15,000 or less.

JESSEPH VS. DIGITAL ALLY, INC. · filed 2020-09-17(1)(b)

Additionally, the amount-in-controversy requirement would not bar the lawsuit here because Jesseph and Churchwell's complaint claims they conferred a substantial benefit on the corporation, which warrants a $250,000 fee award. This amount well exceeds the jurisdictional threshold for Nevada's district courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1) (granting the district courts original jurisdiction over matters outside the justice courts original jurisdiction); NRS 4.370(1)(b) (providing that Nevada's justice courts have jurisdiction over cases seeking damages of $15,000 or less); Morrison v. Beach City LLC, 116 Nev. 34, 38, 991 P.2d 982, 984 (2000) (holding that a claim should only be dismissed for not meeting the amount-in-controversy requirement when it "appear [s] to a legal certainty that the claim is worth less than the jurisdictional amoune).

Subsection (3) supports district-court jurisdiction over a defendant charged with a felony in district court who pleads guilty to that offense.

Daly (John) v. State · filed 2019-04-12(3)

The district court had jurisdiction because Daly was charged with a felony offense in the district court and pleaded guilty to that offense. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 4.370(3).

Section 4.370 gives justice courts jurisdiction over cases in which the amount claimed does not exceed the applicable statutory limit; for this case, the limit was $10,000.

Nev. Checker Cab Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (Ferentz) · filed 2016-02-03(1)(a), (1)(b)

NRS 4.370(1)(a) (2013) grants jurisdiction to justice courts for cases in which "the sum claimed . . . does not exceed $10,000."

For a class action, the total damages sought by the class—not the amount sought by any individual class member—must be used to determine whether the justice court has jurisdiction under § 4.370.

A CAB, LLC v. MURRAY · filed 2021-12-30(1)

we hold that the jurisdictional interpretation set forth in Castillo regarding aggregation was incorrect and that total damages sought by the class, rather than those sought by any individual class member, must be considered in determining whether the justice court has jurisdiction under NRS 4.370.1° Because the class here sought more than $10,000, jurisdiction was proper in district court.