second step inquiry in Nevada

2022Op. 7 , 481 P.3d 1222 , 1226 (2021) (reviewing de novo an order resolving an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss); Abrams v. Sanson, 136 Nev. 83 , 92, 458 P.3d 1062 , 1070 (2020) (concluding that plaintiffs must present prima facie evidence supporting the elements of their claims to satisfy the minimal merit standard under the anti-SLAPP step-two burden); Bikkina v. Mahadevan, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499, 511 (Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing that on the second step of the inquiry, the plaintiff must show that "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of

2022Op. 7 , 481 P.3d 1222 , 1226 (2021) (reviewing de novo an order resolving an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss); Abrams v. Sanson, 136 Nev. 83 , 92, 458 P.3d 1062 , 1070 (2020) (concluding that plaintiffs must present prima facie evidence supporting the elements of their claims to satisfy the minimal merit standard under the anti-SLAPP step-two burden); Bikkina v. Mahadevan, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499, 511 (Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing that on the second step of the inquiry, the plaintiff must show that "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of

2022Op. 7 , 481 P.3d 1222 , 1226 (2021) (reviewing de novo an order resolving an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss); Abrams v. Sanson, 136 Nev. 83 , 92, 458 P.3d 1062 , 1070 (2020) (concluding that plaintiffs must present prima facie evidence supporting the elements of their claims to satisfy the minimal merit standard under the anti-SLAPP step-two burden); Bikkina v. Mahadevan, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499, 511 (Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing that on the second step of the inquiry, the plaintiff must show that "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of

2022Op. 7 , 481 P.3d 1222 , 1226 (2021) (reviewing de novo an order resolving an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss); Abrams v. Sanson, 136 Nev. 83 , 92, 458 P.3d 1062 , 1070 (2020) (concluding that plaintiffs must present prima facie evidence supporting the elements of their claims to satisfy the minimal merit standard under the anti-SLAPP step-two burden); Bikkina v. Mahadevan, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499, 511 (Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing that on the second step of the inquiry, the plaintiff must show that "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of

2024The prosecutor did not vouch for L.N.C. "[V]ouching occurs when the prosecution places the prestige of the government behind the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A 4464F. witness by providing personal assurances of [the] witness's veracity." Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 359 , 91 P.3d 39, 48 (2004) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024The prosecutor did not vouch for L.N.C. "[V]ouching occurs when the prosecution places the prestige of the government behind the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A 4464F. witness by providing personal assurances of [the] witness's veracity." Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 359 , 91 P.3d 39, 48 (2004) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020Martinez Lopez, 864 F.3d at 1038.

2020Martinez Lopez, 864 F.3d at 1038 .

2020Compare NRS 41.660, with NRCP 12(b)(5); see HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co., 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786 , 791 (Ct. App. 2004) (In opposing an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff cannot rely on the allegations of the complaint, but must produce evidence that would be admissible at trial."); see also De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 625, 634 (Ct. App. 2018) (observing that the anti- SLAPP statutes contemplate "consideration of the substantive merits of the plaintiff s complaint, as well as all available defenses to it, including, but not limited to, constitutional defensee (inte

2020Compare NRS 41.660, with NRCP 12(b)(5); see HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co., 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786 , 791 (Ct. App. 2004) (In opposing an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff cannot rely on the allegations of the complaint, but must produce evidence that would be admissible at trial."); see also De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 625, 634 (Ct. App. 2018) (observing that the anti- SLAPP statutes contemplate "consideration of the substantive merits of the plaintiff s complaint, as well as all available defenses to it, including, but not limited to, constitutional defensee (inte

2019See Ford v. State, 122 Nev. 398, 403 , 132 P.3d 574, 577 (2006) (recognizing the first step is moot when the district court skips it and goes straight to asking for the State's reason for the peremptory challenge).

2019See Ford v. State, 122 Nev. 398, 403 , 132 P.3d 574, 577 (2006) (recognizing the first step is moot when the district court skips it and goes straight to asking for the State's reason for the peremptory challenge).