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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.305 (2026)

Disclosure of facts and data underlying expert opinion

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.305  Disclosure of facts and data underlying expert opinion.  The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his or her reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 793)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Singleton v. State, 522 P.2d 1221 (Nev. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Singleton v. State, 522 P.2d 1221 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 2× “Long’s certificate to act as a psychologist in Nevada was under review for allegedly representing that he had certain educational qualifications that he in fact did not have.”
Wrenn v. State, 506 P.2d 418 (Nev. 1973). “NRS 50.305: The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise.”
Johnson (donte) Vs. State (death Penalty-pc), 2017 NV 73 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “See NRS 50.305; Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 790, 121 P.”
Leavitt v. Siems, 2014 NV 54 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “NRS 50.305; Houston Exploration Inc. v. Meredith, 102 Nev.”
Richards (Bobby) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2016). “See NRS 50.305 ("The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his or her reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise.”
Johnson (donte) Vs. State (death Penalty-pc), 2017 NV 73 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.305; Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 790 , 121 P.”
Harrah'S Las Vegas, Llc Vs. Muckridge, 473 P.3d 1020 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 50.305; Houston Exploration Inc. v. Meredith, 102 Nev.”
Follett (Loren) v. State (Nev. 2013). “To the extent Follett objects to the State failing to elicit the basis for the expert's testimony during direct examination, Follett could have elicited this information on cross- examination.”
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.