Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 179 - SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE; SEALING RECORDS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; REWARDS; FORMS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.410 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 179.410  Definitions.  As used in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, except where the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 179.415 to 179.455, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections.

      (Added to NRS by 1973, 1742; A 1989, 658; 2015, 2488)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 8× “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515 inclusive, 209.419 and 704.”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “(1999); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 179.410, et seq. (2005); N.”
Koza v. State, 681 P.2d 44 (Nev. 1984). “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, no person shall disclose the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any wire or radio communication to any person unless authorized to do so by either the sender or receiver.”
Summers v. State, 718 P.2d 676 (Nev. 1986). “650 provides: Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, no person shall intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical,…”
Rupley v. State, 560 P.2d 146 (Nev. 1977). “The district judge determined the telephone conversations in question were intercepted without the authorization required by the “wiretap statutes,” NRS 179.410 et seq., and they were, therefore, inadmissible.”
State v. Reyes, 808 P.2d 544 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 2× “620; NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive. Under NRS 179.”
State v. Bonds, 550 P.2d 409 (Nev. 1976). “1 In support of the motion Bonds argued the interception was unlawful because there had been no order authorizing the *309 police officer to intercept the conversation, as required by the “wiretap statutes,” NRS 179.410 et seq. 2 The district judge agreed, ruling that all…”
Jones v. United States (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 4× “§§ 2511 , 2517, and 2518(1)-(10) and state 5 wiretap laws found in NRS §§ 179.410 to 179.500 when law enforcement unlawfully 6 intercepted Jones’ communications.”
Sharpe (phillip) Vs. State, 2015 NV 32 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “650 allows for the interception of a private communication if authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515. NRS 179.460, subject to other qualifications, permits the interception of "wire communications.”
Fields (Linda) v. State (Nev. 2015). “620; NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, "wire or oral communications aurally acquired through use of regularly installed telephone equipment by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties does not constitute an 'interception.”
Sharpe (phillip) Vs. State, 2015 NV 32 (Nev. 2015). “650 allows for the interception of a private communication if authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515. NRS 179.460, subject to other qualifications, permits the interception of "wire communications.”
Sheriff v. Cortopassi, 789 P.2d 582 (Nev. 1990). “The district court further held that the indictment was based on unlawful disclosures of oral and wire communications in violation of NRS 179.410 through NRS 179.525. The district court apparently accepted respondent’s claim that because “the grand jury hearing” was not…”
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.