I wasn't sure if this statute was posted somewhere on this site or not. If it is, then just ignore:
Quote
LIABILITY OF PERSON WHO USES DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER IN RESIDENCE
NRS 41.095 Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in his residence has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; “residence” defined.
1. For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses, while lawfully in his residence or in transient lodging, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or another person lawfully in the residence or transient lodging if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary or invasion of the home and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary or invasion of the home was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary or invasion of the home may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
2. As used in this section, “residence” means any house, room, apartment, tenement or other building, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer or boat designed or intended for occupancy as a residence.
(Added to NRS by 1989, 1798)
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-041.html#NRS041Sec095
While this doesn't provide a blanket immunity if you use force against an intruder in your residence, it does provide a presumption that must be overcome. This will probably deter a lot of plaintiffs' attorneys from initiating a lawsuit against you if you had to use force against their client.
So we have some measure of a "Castle Doctrine" in Nevada.