Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 50 - WITNESSES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.285 (2026)

Opinions: Experts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.285  Opinions: Experts.

      1.  The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.

      2.  If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 793)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 6× “All such consultations on Perkins's part are permitted pursuant to NRS 50.285(1). Accordingly, Rudin's argument is without merit.”
Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “[4] Collman does not make this argument, but we note that the evidence in question was also not admissible under NRS 50.285(2), which provides that "facts or data need not be admissible in evidence" if they are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in forming opinions or…”
Pineda v. State, 88 P.3d 827 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “275; NRS 50.285. The district court properly excluded expert testimony that, based upon the circumstances of the case, Pineda's decision to use deadly force was the product of a rash impulse or desperation; testimony amounting to comments on Pineda's mental processes; and…”
Polk v. State, 233 P.3d 357 (Nev. 2010). “In its answering brief, the State asserts that Kaminski’s testimony was admissible because she was an expert witness offering her opinion, which may be based upon inadmissible evidence under NRS 50.285; however the State did not address Crawford or Melendez-Diaz , nor did it…”
State, Dep't. of Transp. v. Cowan, 103 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “Therefore, the Cowans should have the right to present sales and appraisal information through expert opinion testimony based upon comparable California sales pursuant to NRS 50.”
In Re: Guardianship of Rubin, 2021 NV 27 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “See NRS 50.285(2) (providing that experts may rely on "facts or data [that are] not .”
Estes v. State, 146 P.3d 1114 (Nev. 2006). “51 NRS 50.285, however, allows experts to base their opinions on facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible, if such information is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that field.”
Nevada Power Co. v. 3 Kids, L.L.C., 302 P.3d 1155 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “Nevada Power also argues that Campa’s testimony violated NRS 50.285 because her paired sales analysis lacked verifiable and reliable data relating to the five property sales.”
Provence v. Cunningham, 588 P.2d 1020 (Nev. 1979). “Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the opinion of Professor Manning to rebut the opinion testimony elicited by appellants from their expert witness. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court denying…”
Wrenn v. State, 506 P.2d 418 (Nev. 1973). “NRS 50.285: 1. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 10× “650, because NRS 50.285(2) allows experts to consider inadmissible evidence only if the evidence is "of a type 1 We express no opinion as to the legality of Sean's actions.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 5× “650, because NRS 50.285(2) allows experts to consider inadmissible evidence only if the evidence is "of a type 1 We express no opinion as to the legality of Sean's actions.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.285(1) — 5 cases
Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2004). “All such consultations on Perkins's part are permitted pursuant to NRS 50.285(1). Accordingly, Rudin's argument is without merit.”
Forsgren (Justin) v. State (Nev. 2017).
Theil (Brett) Vs. State, 480 P.3d 834 (Nev. 2021).
Nichols v. Baca (D. Nev. 2021).
Randolph (Roger) v. State (Nev. 2015).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.285(2) — 10 cases
Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2004). “All such consultations on Perkins's part are permitted pursuant to NRS 50.285(1). Accordingly, Rudin's argument is without merit.”
Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000). “[4] Collman does not make this argument, but we note that the evidence in question was also not admissible under NRS 50.285(2), which provides that "facts or data need not be admissible in evidence" if they are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in forming opinions or…”
In Re: Guardianship of Rubin, 2021 NV 27 (Nev. 2021). “See NRS 50.285(2) (providing that experts may rely on "facts or data [that are] not .”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017). “650, because NRS 50.285(2) allows experts to consider inadmissible evidence only if the evidence is "of a type 1 We express no opinion as to the legality of Sean's actions.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017). “650, because NRS 50.285(2) allows experts to consider inadmissible evidence only if the evidence is "of a type 1 We express no opinion as to the legality of Sean's actions.”
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.