NRS
49.015 Privileges recognized only as provided.
1. Except as otherwise required by the
Constitution of the United States or of the State of Nevada, and except as
otherwise provided in this title or title 14 of NRS, or NRS 41.071 or 463.120 or any other specific statute, no
person has a privilege to:
(a) Refuse to be a witness;
(b) Refuse to disclose any matter;
(c) Refuse to produce any object or writing; or
(d) Prevent another from being a witness or
disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.
2. This section does not:
(a) Impair any privilege created by title 14 of
NRS or by the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure which is limited to a particular
stage of the proceeding; or
(b) Extend any such privilege to any other stage
of a proceeding.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
782; A 2009,
1043; 2017,
4066)
Notes of Decisions
Newburn v. Howard Hughes Med. Inst., 594 P.2d 1146 (Nev. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The general statutory scheme is that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, disclose any matter or produce any object or writing unless granted a privilege to do so [NRS 49.015], which privilege may be waived by voluntary disclosure [NRS 49.”
Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 856 P.2d 244 (Nev. 1993).
“NRS 49.015(l)(d). NRS 49.265(1) put the sub-committee report beyond the reach of “discovery proceedings.”
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
“2d at 22 (“were we to recognize that all communications between [emergency responders] and patients were privileged, we would be limiting the amount of testimony which could be offered at trial and, thereby, impeding the search for truth,” a “policy decisionf best left] to the…”
Newton v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 109 F.R.D. 522 (D. Nev. 1985).
“§ 49.015. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Appellant Newburn’s argument that his voluntary disclosure of information on April 6, 1978, was itself a privileged communication within the meaning of N.”
Canarelli Vs. Dist. Ct. (canarelli), 2020 NV 29 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “NRS 49.015 provides that privileges in Nevada are recognized only as "required by the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Nevada" or by a specific statute.”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 2× “But we cannot enlarge the doctor- patient privilege by judicially narrowing one of its principal exceptions without running afoul of NRS 49.015, which constrains nonconstitutional privileges to those the Legislature has authorized.”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
“But we cannot enlarge the doctor- patient privilege by judicially narrowing one of its principal exceptions without running afoul of NRS 49.015, which constrains nonconstitutional privileges to those the Legislature has authorized.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.015(1) — 1 case
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
“2d at 22 (“were we to recognize that all communications between [emergency responders] and patients were privileged, we would be limiting the amount of testimony which could be offered at trial and, thereby, impeding the search for truth,” a “policy decisionf best left] to the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.015(l)(d) — 1 case
Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 856 P.2d 244 (Nev. 1993).
“NRS 49.015(l)(d). NRS 49.265(1) put the sub-committee report beyond the reach of “discovery proceedings.”
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.