Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.590 (2026)
Factors for determining whether to permit alternative method
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.590 Factors for determining whether to permit alternative method. If the presiding officer determines that a
standard pursuant to NRS 50.580 has been
met, the presiding officer shall determine whether to allow a child witness to
testify by an alternative method. In making this determination, the presiding
officer shall consider:
1. Alternative methods reasonably available;
2. Available means for protecting the interests of or reducing emotional trauma to the child without resorting to an alternative method;
3. The nature of the case;
4. The relative rights of the parties;
5. The importance of the proposed testimony of the child;
6. The nature and degree of emotional trauma that the child may suffer if an alternative method is not used; and
7. Any other relevant factor.
(Added to NRS by 2003, 989)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2017–2017 · leading case: Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017).
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.590(1)-(7). The judge must then support his or her determination by stating the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order.”
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.590(1)-(7). The judge must then support his or her determination by stating the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.590(1) — 2 cases
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.590(1)-(7). The judge must then support his or her determination by stating the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order.”
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.590(1)-(7). The judge must then support his or her determination by stating the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order.”
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.