Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.032 (2026)

Acts or omissions of officers, employees and immune contractors

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 41.032 Acts or omissions of officers, employees and immune contractors. Except as provided in NRS 278.0233 no action may be brought under NRS 41.031 or against an immune contractor or an officer or employee of the State or any of its agencies or political subdivisions which is:

1. Based upon an act or omission of an officer, employee or immune contractor, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation is valid, if the statute or regulation has not been declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

2. Based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the State or any of its agencies or political subdivisions or of any officer, employee or immune contractor of any of these, whether or not the discretion involved is abused.

(Added to NRS by 1965, 1413; A 1967, 992; 1977, 1536; 1983, 2100; 1987, 540)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 174 cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Martinez v. Maruszczak, 168 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Martinez v. Maruszczak, 168 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 25× “Martinez made *443 here, we first briefly review our decisional law interpreting NRS 41.032’s scope. In applying the discretionary-function exception in various contexts, this court has created two separate tests that cannot be reconciled.”

ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks, 173 P.3d 734 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 22× “110 and for its pre-flood activities under NRS 41.032 and NRS 41.033. [41] The district court then granted Carson City's motion for summary judgment.”

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer, 168 P.3d 1055 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 11× “47 NRS 41.032 provides that: [N]o action may be brought under NRS 41.”

City of Boulder City v. Boulder Excavating, Inc., 191 P.3d 1175 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 19× “031(1) in this case are set forth in NRS 41.032. Particularly, NRS 41.032 provides that government actors following statutory guidelines or exercising their discretion are immune from common law tort actions in connection with their statutory duties or their discretion: Except…”

Goodman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (D. Nev. 2013). · cites it 10× “031, the State has retained immunity under NRS § 41.032 for officials exercising discretion.”

Ransdell v. Clark Cnty., 192 P.3d 756 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 13× “7 In relevant part, NRS 41.032 states that [N]o action may be brought under NRS 41.”

Falline v. GNLV CORP., 823 P.2d 888 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 8× “Although statutory immunity for discretionary acts is accorded only to governmental agencies and employees, we have determined that a denial of such immunity to self-insured employers and their administrators/agents would constitute an unwarranted, discriminatory source of…”

Wayment v. Holmes, 912 P.2d 816 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 10× “The State of Nevada has not waived immunity on behalf of its departments of political subdivisions, and the Washoe County District Attorney's office has not been conferred the power to sue and be sued.”

Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001). · cites it 2× “See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.032 , 41.0335 41.0339 (1996 and Supp.”

Owen v. City of Indep., 445 U.S. 622 (1980). · cites it 2× “§§ 23-2409 (1), (2) (1977); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.032 (1977); N. D. Cent.”

Glover-Armont v. Cargile, 426 P.3d 45 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 11× “Below, North Las Vegas framed Glover-Armont's allegation as a blanket challenge to Sergeant Cargile's decision to enter the intersection against a red traffic signal in an emergency, when in fact Glover-Armont alleged that the conditions and manner in which Sergeant Cargile…”

Shafer v. City of Boulder, 896 F. Supp. 2d 915 (D. Nev. 2012). · cites it 8× “031, the State has retained immunity under NRS § 41.032 for officials exercising discretion.”

Show all 174 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.032(1) — 4 cases

Martinez v. Maruszczak, 168 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2007). “Martinez made *443 here, we first briefly review our decisional law interpreting NRS 41.032’s scope. In applying the discretionary-function exception in various contexts, this court has created two separate tests that cannot be reconciled.”

Gulbranson v. City of Sparks, 506 P.2d 1264 (Nev. 1973).

Ansara v. Maldonado (D. Nev. 2022).

Borenstein v. The Animal Found. (D. Nev. 2023).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.032(2) — 116 cases

ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks, 173 P.3d 734 (Nev. 2007). “110 and for its pre-flood activities under NRS 41.032 and NRS 41.033. [41] The district court then granted Carson City's motion for summary judgment.”

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer, 168 P.3d 1055 (Nev. 2007). “47 NRS 41.032 provides that: [N]o action may be brought under NRS 41.”

Ransdell v. Clark Cnty., 192 P.3d 756 (Nev. 2008). “7 In relevant part, NRS 41.032 states that [N]o action may be brought under NRS 41.”

City of Boulder City v. Boulder Excavating, Inc., 191 P.3d 1175 (Nev. 2008). “031(1) in this case are set forth in NRS 41.032. Particularly, NRS 41.032 provides that government actors following statutory guidelines or exercising their discretion are immune from common law tort actions in connection with their statutory duties or their discretion: Except…”

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.