NRS
465.075 Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain
advantage at playing game prohibited. It
is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist
another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized,
electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or
any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed
to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment
or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without
limitation, a device that:
1. Projects the outcome of the game;
2. Keeps track of cards played or cards
prepared for play in the game;
3. Analyzes the probability of the
occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or
betting to be used in the game,
Ê except as
may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the
Commission.
(Added to NRS by 1985,
970; A 2011,
216; 2013,
1317)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1987–2020 · leading case:
Taylor Vs. Colon, 482 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2020).
Taylor Vs. Colon, 482 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “First, we note that the "gist or sting" of the challenged portion of Taylor's presentation was undeniably that a player had been caught using a cheating device in violation of NRS 465.075(1). Taylor's presentation was entitled Scams, Cheats, and Blacklists.”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty., Nev. v. Anderson, 746 P.2d 643 (Nev. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The court found that NRS 465.075 was unconstitutionally vague on its face and in its application; was overbroad; and that it denied Anderson his First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 465.075(1): 1 case
Taylor Vs. Colon, 482 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2020).
“First, we note that the "gist or sting" of the challenged portion of Taylor's presentation was undeniably that a player had been caught using a cheating device in violation of NRS 465.075(1). Taylor's presentation was entitled Scams, Cheats, and Blacklists.”
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.