NRS
164.041 Confidential information: Redaction and sealing of information
without prior court order in certain circumstances.
1. Confidential information relating to
trusts that is contained in petitions and subsequent related findings under
this title or title 12 of NRS may be redacted and filed under seal without a
prior court order so long as the unredacted and complete copies of such
petitions and filings are promptly provided to the court in camera and to all
persons entitled to notice thereto.
2. Unless the court orders otherwise,
confidential information once redacted or filed under seal must be redacted and
filed under seal without a prior court order in all subsequent filings and
orders in the matter relating to the petition, and unredacted and complete
copies of such filings and orders must be promptly provided in camera to the
court and to all persons entitled to copies thereto, as appropriate.
3. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to abridge the power of any court of competent jurisdiction to order
the production of unredacted and complete copies of petitions, filings and
orders that have been redacted or filed under seal to an interested person, as
defined in NRS 132.185, or to other
persons for cause shown.
4. As used in this section, “confidential
information” includes:
(a) Trust instruments, inventories, accountings
and reports;
(b) The names and addresses of trust settlors and
beneficiaries;
(c) Trust dispositive terms, including, without
limitation:
(1) The identity and amount of
distributions or gifts; and
(2) Powers of appointments;
(d) Corporate and company records relating to
trusts;
(e) Personally identifying information,
including, without limitation, social security numbers and dates of birth; and
(f) Any other information the court deems
confidential, if the interest in protecting the confidentiality of the
information outweighs the public interest in accessing such information.
(Added to NRS by 2023,
1323)
PAYMENT OF TRUSTEE
Notes of Decisions
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 21× “The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 22× “The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 164.041(1): 2 cases
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 164.041(2): 2 cases
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 164.041(3): 2 cases
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 164.041(4): 2 cases
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
New York Times Co. v. Dist. Ct. (doe 1 Trust) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 71 (Nev. 2025).
“The district court erred by interpreting and applying the governing statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256, in a way that is much more restrictive of public access than those statutes contemplate and disregards established principles of openness of court proceedings.”
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.