Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 239 - PUBLIC RECORDS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 239.0113 (2026)

Burden of proof where confidentiality of public book or record is at issue

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 239.0113  Burden of proof where confidentiality of public book or record is at issue.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 239.0115, if:

      1.  The confidentiality of a public book or record, or a part thereof, is at issue in a judicial or administrative proceeding; and

      2.  The governmental entity that has legal custody or control of the public book or record asserts that the public book or record, or a part thereof, is confidential,

Ê the governmental entity has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the public book or record, or a part thereof, is confidential.

      (Added to NRS by 2007, 2062)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case: Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 266 P.3d 623 (Nev. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 266 P.3d 623 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 3× “Conversely, any limitations or restrictions on the public’s right of access must be narrowly construed. NRS 239.001(3); 2007 Nev.”
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. Vs. Las Vegas Review-journal, 2018 NV 84 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “(citing NRS 239.0113 ). "[I]n the absence of a statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to be confidential, any limitations on disclosure must be based upon a broad balancing of the interests involved.”
Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Haley, 234 P.3d 922 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 2× “NRS 239.0113(2). Scope of the statutory exception creating confidentiality within NRS 202.”
Repub. Attorneys Gen. Ass'n Vs. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 2020 NV 3 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “" NRS 239.0113. LVMPD provided the district court with the relevant portions of the bodycam footage and a privilege log so that the district court could conduct an in camera review, and the district court subsequently found that all portions of the bodycam footage contain…”
Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 313 P.3d 221 (Nev. 2013). “3d at 628 ; see also NRS 239.0113(2). Further, the government’s interests in nondisclosure are interpreted narrowly, whereas the public’s interests in openness and accessibility are interpreted liberally.”
The Nevada Indep. v. Whitley, 2022 NV 15 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “NRS 239.0113; Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. of Nev.”
Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nev. v. Nev. Policy Rsch. Inst., Inc., 429 P.3d 280 (Nev. 2018). “1 NRS 239.0113 ; Reno Newspapers, 129 Nev. at 837 , 313 P.”
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. Vs. Las Vegas Review-journal, 2018 NV 84 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 6× “(citing NRS 239.0113). "[I]n the absence of a statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to be confidential, any limitations on disclosure must be based upon a broad balancing of the interests involved.”
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. Vs. Las Vegas Review-journal, 2018 NV 84 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “(citing NRS 239.0113). "[I]n the absence of a statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to be confidential, any limitations on disclosure must be based upon a broad balancing of the interests involved.”
Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nevada Vs. Nevada Policy Rsch. Inst., Inc., 2018 NV 81 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “' NRS 239.0113; Reno Newspapers, 129 Nev. at 837 , 313 P.”
State, Dep't of Emp't, Training & Rehab. Vs. Sierra Nat'l Corp., 2020 NV 11 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “NRS 239.0113. Consistent with these principles, we narrowly interpret the statutes listed in NRS 239.”
Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nevada Vs. Nevada Policy Rsch. Inst., Inc., 2018 NV 81 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “' NRS 239.0113; Reno Newspapers, 129 Nev. at 837, 313 P.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 239.0113(2) — 3 cases
Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Haley, 234 P.3d 922 (Nev. 2010). “NRS 239.0113(2). Scope of the statutory exception creating confidentiality within NRS 202.”
Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 313 P.3d 221 (Nev. 2013). “3d at 628 ; see also NRS 239.0113(2). Further, the government’s interests in nondisclosure are interpreted narrowly, whereas the public’s interests in openness and accessibility are interpreted liberally.”
Conrad v. Reno Police Dep't (Nev. 2023).
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.