Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 41 - ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARTICULAR CASES CONCERNING PERSONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.665 (2026)

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 41.665  Legislative findings and declaration regarding plaintiff’s burden of proof under NRS 41.660.  The Legislature finds and declares that:

      1.  NRS 41.660 provides certain protections to a person against whom an action is brought, if the action is based upon 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.

      2.  When a plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of success of prevailing on a claim pursuant to NRS 41.660, the Legislature intends that in determining whether the plaintiff “has demonstrated with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim” the plaintiff must meet the same burden of proof that a plaintiff has been required to meet pursuant to California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation law as of June 8, 2015.

      (Added to NRS by 2015, 2455)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Rosen Vs. Tarkanian, 2019 NV 59 (Nev. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rosen Vs. Tarkanian, 2019 NV 59 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “Under prong two, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate "with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim.”
Coker v. Sassone, 432 P.3d 746 (Nev. 2019). “Moreover, in NRS 41.665, the Nevada Legislature specifically stated that the standard for determining whether a plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proof under NRS 41.”
Taylor Vs. Colon, 2020 NV 50 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “1999) (holding that California's equivalent anti-SLAPP statutes only require the court to determine whether the plaintiff stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim); see also NRS 41.665(2) (stating that a plaintiffs burden under prong two is the same as a plaintiffs…”
In re Gawker Media LLC, 571 B.R. 612 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.665 (2). If the court denies *628 the special motion, its determination will not be admitted into evidence or affect the burden of proof at a later stage of the underlying action or subsequent proceeding.”
Kosor, Jr. Vs. Olympia Co.'s, LLC, 2020 NV 83 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “3 Additionally, perhaps as a result of the legislatively mandated breadth of California's anti-SLAPP statutes, Barretes blanket holding and the progeny that extends therefrom leapfrog what is traditionally a critical 3NRS 41.665(2) endorses California anti-SLAPP law with respect…”
Taylor Vs. Colon, 2020 NV 50 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “1999) (holding that California's equivalent anti-SLAPP statutes only require the court to determine whether the plaintiff stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim); see also NRS 41.665(2) (stating that a plaintiffs burden under prong two is the same as a plaintiffs…”
Wynn v. The Associated Press, 555 P.3d 272 (Nev. 2024). “" NRS 41.665(2). Thus, we turn to California law to resolve the issue at hand.”
Abrams Vs. Sanson c/w 75834, 2020 NV 9 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “3 See NRS 41.665(2) (stating that a plaintiffs burden under prong two is the same as a plaintiff's burden under California's anti- SLAPP law); Navellier v.”
Abrams Vs. Sanson c/w 75834, 2020 NV 9 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “3 See NRS 41.665(2) (stating that a plaintiffs burden under prong two is the same as a plaintiff's burden under California's anti- SLAPP law); Navellier v.”
Coker Vs. Sassone, 2019 NV 2 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “Moreover, in NRS 41.665, the Nevada Legislature specifically stated that the standard for determining whether a plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proof under NRS 41.”
Sternberg v. Warneck (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.665 (2). In June 2015, California’s anti-SLAPP statute stated that the 22 plaintiff had to establish “that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
Coker Vs. Sassone, 2019 NV 2 (Nev. 2019). “Moreover, in NRS 41.665, the Nevada Legislature specifically stated that the standard for determining whether a plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proof under NRS 41.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.665(2) — 8 cases
Rosen Vs. Tarkanian, 2019 NV 59 (Nev. 2019). “Under prong two, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate "with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim.”
Taylor Vs. Colon, 2020 NV 50 (Nev. 2020). “1999) (holding that California's equivalent anti-SLAPP statutes only require the court to determine whether the plaintiff stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim); see also NRS 41.665(2) (stating that a plaintiffs burden under prong two is the same as a plaintiffs…”
Kosor, Jr. Vs. Olympia Co.'s, LLC, 2020 NV 83 (Nev. 2020). “3 Additionally, perhaps as a result of the legislatively mandated breadth of California's anti-SLAPP statutes, Barretes blanket holding and the progeny that extends therefrom leapfrog what is traditionally a critical 3NRS 41.665(2) endorses California anti-SLAPP law with respect…”
Taylor Vs. Colon, 2020 NV 50 (Nev. 2020). “1999) (holding that California's equivalent anti-SLAPP statutes only require the court to determine whether the plaintiff stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim); see also NRS 41.665(2) (stating that a plaintiffs burden under prong two is the same as a plaintiffs…”
Wynn v. The Associated Press, 555 P.3d 272 (Nev. 2024). “" NRS 41.665(2). Thus, we turn to California law to resolve the issue at hand.”
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.