NRS
201.255 Penalties.
1. Any person who willfully makes a
telephone call and addresses any obscene language, representation or suggestion
to or about any person receiving such call or addresses to such other person
any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed
or any member of the person’s family is guilty of a misdemeanor.
2. Every person who makes a telephone call
with intent to annoy another is, whether or not conversation ensues from making
the telephone call, guilty of a misdemeanor.
3. Any violation of subsections 1 and 2 is
committed at the place at which the telephone call or calls were made and at
the place where the telephone call or calls were received, and may be
prosecuted at either place.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
98; A 1971,
855)
EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIAL TO MINORS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1971–2020 · leading case:
Glegola v. State, 871 P.2d 950 (Nev. 1994).
Glegola v. State, 871 P.2d 950 (Nev. 1994).
“040 (“Every minor who shall falsely represent himself to be 21 years of age in order to obtain any intoxicating liquor . . .”) (emphasis added).”
Glass v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 486 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1971).
“” No attempt was made by the district attorney to enjoin Glass under the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 201.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (radonski, (david)), 2020 NV 23 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “2d 950, 952 (1994) (explaining that NRS 201.255(2)s "with intent to annoy anothee language "indicates that a specific intent is an element of the offense").”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.255(2): 2 cases
Glegola v. State, 871 P.2d 950 (Nev. 1994).
“040 (“Every minor who shall falsely represent himself to be 21 years of age in order to obtain any intoxicating liquor . . .”) (emphasis added).”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (radonski, (david)), 2020 NV 23 (Nev. 2020).
“2d 950, 952 (1994) (explaining that NRS 201.255(2)s "with intent to annoy anothee language "indicates that a specific intent is an element of the offense").”
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.