Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fink v. Oshinsgreen2 sentences2021See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640, 644 (2002) ("[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made during actual judicial proceedings, but also to 'communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.'" (quoting Bull v. MeCuskey, 96 Nev. 706, 712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301, 701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). 2021See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640, 644 (2002) ("[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made during actual judicial proceedings, but also to 'communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.'" (quoting Bull v. MeCuskey, 96 Nev. 706, 712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301, 701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). | 3 | 5 |
Clark County School District v. Virtual Education Software, Inc.green2 sentences2020Software, Inc., 125 Nev. 374, 382-83 , 213 P.3d 496, 502-03 (2009) (discussing the absolute litigation privilege). 2020Software, Inc., 125 Nev. 374, 382-83 , 213 P.3d 496, 502-03 (2009) (discussing the absolute litigation privilege). | 1 | 2 |
Knox v. Dickgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Lewis, 101 Nev. at 301, 701 P.2d at 752 (applying the privilege to complaints filed with law enforcement); Knox v. Dick, 99 Nev. 514, 518, 665 P.2d 267, 270 (1983) (applying the privilege to statements made to the Clark County Personnel Grievance Board); Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188, 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (recognizing that Connecticut has long recognized the common law litigation privilege to afford absolute immunity to those providing information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings). 2021See, e.g., Lewis, 101 Nev. at 301, 701 P.2d at 752 (applying the privilege to complaints filed with law enforcement); Knox v. Dick, 99 Nev. 514, 518, 665 P.2d 267, 270 (1983) (applying the privilege to statements made to the Clark County Personnel Grievance Board); Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188, 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (recognizing that Connecticut has long recognized the common law litigation privilege to afford absolute immunity to those providing information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoongreen2 sentences2021We have expressly concluded that the absolute litigation privilege extends "to quasi-judicial proceedings before executive officers, boards, and commissions." Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 61, 657 P.2d 101, 104 (1983). 2021We have expressly concluded that the absolute litigation privilege extends "to quasi-judicial proceedings before executive officers, boards, and commissions." Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 61, 657 P.2d 101, 104 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Bull v. McCuskeygreen2 sentences2021See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640, 644 (2002) ("[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made during actual judicial proceedings, but also to 'communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.'" (quoting Bull v. MeCuskey, 96 Nev. 706, 712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301, 701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). 2021See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640, 644 (2002) ("[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made during actual judicial proceedings, but also to 'communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.'" (quoting Bull v. MeCuskey, 96 Nev. 706, 712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301, 701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). | 1 | 1 |
1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldmangreen2 sentences2021Id. at 39, 389 P.3d at 268 (recognizing that this court "look fsl to California law for guidance when analyzing Nevada's anti- SLAPP statute); see Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs., 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 15 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding that "Mlle litigation privilege is relevant to the second step in the anti-SLAPP analysis" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 4This holding is consistent with our prior caselaw. 2021Id. at 39, 389 P.3d at 268 (recognizing that this court "look fsl to California law for guidance when analyzing Nevada's anti- SLAPP statute); see Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs., 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 15 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding that "Mlle litigation privilege is relevant to the second step in the anti-SLAPP analysis" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 4This holding is consistent with our prior caselaw. | 1 | 1 |
Asia Investment Co. v. Borowskigreen2 sentences2021Co., LTD v. Borowski, 184 Cal. Rptr. 317, 324 (Ct. App. 1982) (collecting cases applying the absolute litigation privilege to non-defamation torts like abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander of title, and intentional interference with prospective business advantage). 2021Co., LTD v. Borowski, 184 Cal. Rptr. 317, 324 (Ct. App. 1982) (collecting cases applying the absolute litigation privilege to non-defamation torts like abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander of title, and intentional interference with prospective business advantage). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Bensongreen2 sentences2021See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640, 644 (2002) ("[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made during actual judicial proceedings, but also to 'communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.'" (quoting Bull v. MeCuskey, 96 Nev. 706, 712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301, 701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). 2021See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640, 644 (2002) ("[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made during actual judicial proceedings, but also to 'communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.'" (quoting Bull v. MeCuskey, 96 Nev. 706, 712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301, 701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Kinggreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Lewis, 101 Nev. at 301, 701 P.2d at 752 (applying the privilege to complaints filed with law enforcement); Knox v. Dick, 99 Nev. 514, 518, 665 P.2d 267, 270 (1983) (applying the privilege to statements made to the Clark County Personnel Grievance Board); Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188, 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (recognizing that Connecticut has long recognized the common law litigation privilege to afford absolute immunity to those providing information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings). 2021See, e.g., Lewis, 101 Nev. at 301 , 701 P.2d at 752 (applying the privilege to complaints filed with law enforcement); Knox v. Dick, 99 Nev. 514, 518 , 665 P.2d 267, 270 (1983) (applying the privilege to statements made to the Clark County Personnel Grievance Board); Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188, 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (recognizing that Connecticut has long recognized the common law litigation privilege to afford absolute immunity to those providing information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.