Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 704 - REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERALLY

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 704.206

Certain public utilities required to provide list of customers upon request of district judge or jury commissioner for use in jury selection; reimbursement for cost of compiling list; immunity for disclosure made in good faith

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 704.206  Certain public utilities required to provide list of customers upon request of district judge or jury commissioner for use in jury selection; reimbursement for cost of compiling list; immunity for disclosure made in good faith.

      1.  A public utility, other than a public utility furnishing telephone services, shall provide a list of the names and addresses of the customers of the public utility upon the request of any:

      (a) District judge; or

      (b) Jury commissioner,

Ê for use in the selection of jurors.

      2.  The court or jury commissioner who requests the list of customers shall reimburse the public utility for the reasonable cost of compiling the list.

      3.  A disclosure made in good faith pursuant to subsection 1 does not give rise to any action for damages for the disclosure of the name and address of a customer by a public utility.

      (Added to NRS by 1989, 2041; A 2007, 240)

OTHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2020–2020 · leading case: Cortinas v. State Of Nevada
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cortinas v. State Of Nevada (2020) nvd “§ 704.206(1). However, this statutory change along with Cortinas’ citations to a newspaper 1 article’s discussion of a report by the Nevada Appellate and Postconviction Project, which was 2 not found to be conclusive by an internal audit, and to an amici curiae brief explaining…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 704.206(1) — 1 case
Cortinas v. State Of Nevada (2020) nvd “§ 704.206(1). However, this statutory change along with Cortinas’ citations to a newspaper 1 article’s discussion of a report by the Nevada Appellate and Postconviction Project, which was 2 not found to be conclusive by an internal audit, and to an amici curiae brief explaining…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.