Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.650 (2026)
Limitation of liability
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 41.650 Limitation of liability. A
person who engages in a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to
petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of
public concern is immune from any civil action for claims based upon the
communication.
(Added to NRS by 1993, 2848; A 1997, 1365, 2593; 2013, 623)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Rosen Vs. Tarkanian, 2019 NV 59 (Nev. 2019).
Rosen Vs. Tarkanian, 2019 NV 59 (Nev. 2019). “See NRS 41.650. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0.”
Metabolic Rsch., Inc. v. Scott Ferrell, 693 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012). “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.650 (emphasis added). We must presume the legislature selected its words with purpose, and immunity from “civil liability” is unquestionably different than immunity from “suit” or “trial.”
Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 678 N.E.2d 1196 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.650 (1995). The statute in New York protects efforts “to report on, comment on, rule on, challenge or oppose” the action of “any person who has applied for or obtained a permit, zoning change, lease, license, certificate or other entitlement for use or…”
Perry v. Perez-Wendt, 294 P.3d 1081 (Haw. App. 2013). “231, § 59H (West, Westlaw through 1996 Act 450)); Nevada (Nev. Rev.Stat. § 41.650 (Westlaw through 1997 Act 387)); Rhode Island (R.”
Wynn v. The Associated Press, 555 P.3d 272 (Nev. 2024). “NRS 41.650; NRS 41.660(1)(a). District court,s resolve such motions based on the two-prong framework laid out in NRS 41.”
Panik v. TMM, Inc. (Nev. 2023). “NRS 41.650; NRS 41.660. In this opinion, we clarify that the anti-SLAPP statutes do not exclude any particular types of claims for relief from their scope because the focus is on the defendant’s activity, not the form of the plaintiff's claims for relief.”
Smith v. Craig (D. Nev. 2019). “As Defendant demonstrates through its Motions, Smith’s 22 Complaint is highly unlikely to survive for six reasons: (1) Fennemore is immune from liability 23 under NRS 41.650; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the absolute litigation privilege; (3) Plaintiff 24 has not pleaded…”
Davis v. Parks (Nev. 2014). “WCSD filed a special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes, NRS 41.650 and NRS 41.660. The district court entered an order granting WCSD's motion, dismissing all five of Davis' claims.”
John v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 219 P.3d 1276 (Nev. 2009). “NRS 41.650; see Globetrotter Software v. Elan Computer Group, 63 F.”
Metabolic Rsch., Inc. v. Scott Ferrell, 668 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2012). “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.650 (emphasis added). We must presume the legislature selected its words with purpose, and immunity from “civil liability” is unquestionably different than immunity from “suit” or “trial.”
Smith Vs. Zilverberg c/w 80348, 2021 NV 7 (Nev. 2021). “NRS 41.650 (providing that "[a] person who engages in a good faith communication in furtherance of the right .”
Smith Vs. Zilverberg c/w 80348, 2021 NV 7 (Nev. 2021). “NRS 41.650 (providing that "[a] person who engages in a good faith communication in furtherance of the right .”
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.