Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 213 - PARDONS AND PAROLES; REMISSIONS OF FINES AND COMMUTATIONS OF PUNISHMENTS

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1075

Information obtained by employees of Division or Board privileged; nondisclosure

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 213.1075  Information obtained by employees of Division or Board privileged; nondisclosure.  Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, all information obtained in the discharge of official duty by an employee of the Division or the Board is privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other than the Board, the judge, district attorney or others entitled to receive such information, unless otherwise ordered by the Board or judge or necessary to perform the duties of the Division.

      (Added to NRS by 1959, 799; A 1975, 179; 1993, 1524; 1995, 2066; 1997, 837; 2005, 83)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: Coles v. Bisbee
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coles v. Bisbee (2018) nev “Moreover, NRS 213.1075 specifically provides that the information gathered by the Board in executing its duties is privileged and may not be disclosed except in limited circumstances that Coles has not presented.”
Neske v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (2022) nvd · cites it 8× “23 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 213.1075 (West). 24 Here, Plaintiff demonstrated that the information sought is relevant and material to its 25 claims, as Mr.”
Crawley v. Clark County Detention Center (2022) nvd · cites it 6× “26 27 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 213.1075 (West). 1 The Court interprets NRS 213.”
Goetz Vs. Nev. Div. Of Parole And Prob. (2020) nev · cites it 4× “The Division denied Goetz's request, contending that the records are exempt from the NPRA because they are confidential pursuant to NRS 213.1075, which provides: Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, all information obtained in the discharge of official duty by an…”
COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE (2018) nev · cites it 2× “Moreover, NRS 213.1075 specifically provides that the information gathered by the Board in executing its duties is privileged and may not be disclosed except in limited circumstances that Coles has not presented.”
COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE (2018) nev · cites it 2× “Moreover, NRS 213.1075 specifically provides that the information gathered by the Board in executing its duties is privileged and may not be disclosed except in limited circumstances that Coles has not presented.”
Morrow v. Bisbee (2015) nev · cites it 2× “However, Morrow's reliance on these statutes is misplaced as NRS 213.1075 specifically controls the disclosure of information obtained by the Board in the discharge of its official duty and the more specific provision• controls.”
McCormick v. Bisbee (2017) nev “McCormick's reliance is misplaced, as NRS 213.1075 specifically provides that the information gathered by the Board in executing its duties is privileged and may not be disclosed except to the Board, the judge, the district attorney, or another with a specific entitlement to…”
McCormick v. Schofield, M.D. (2013) nev “1) (July 23, 2009) (designating all documents considered by the panel confidential pursuant to NRS 213.1075). Finally, while appellant argues that the Psychological Review Panel respondents had a statutory duty under NRS 179A.”
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.