NRS
597.995 Limitations on agreements which include provision requiring
arbitration of disputes arising between parties.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 3, an agreement which includes a provision which requires a person
to submit to arbitration any dispute arising between the parties to the
agreement must include specific authorization for the provision which indicates
that the person has affirmatively agreed to the provision.
2. If an agreement includes a provision
which requires a person to submit to arbitration any dispute arising between
the parties to the agreement and the agreement fails to include the specific
authorization required pursuant to subsection 1, the provision is void and
unenforceable.
3. The provisions of this section do not
apply to an agreement that is a collective bargaining agreement. As used in
this subsection, “collective bargaining” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 288.032.
4. The provisions of this section do not
apply to a provision in a will or trust instrument that requires the
arbitration of disputes which is enforceable pursuant to NRS 164.930.
(Added to NRS by 2013,
568; A 2019,
1874, 3744)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case:
Maide, LLC v. Dileo, 2022 NV 9 (Nev. 2022).
Maide, LLC v. Dileo, 2022 NV 9 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 36× “Cogburn Law and Hunter S. Davidson and Jamie S. Cogburn, Henderson, for Respondents.”
Mmawc, LLC Vs. Zion Wood Obi Wan Tr., 2019 NV 38 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 28× “In this appeal, we determine whether the FAA preempts NRS 597.995, which requires agreements that include an arbitration provision to also include a specific authorization for the arbitration provision showing that the parties affirmatively agreed to that provision.”
Fat Hat, LLC v. Diterlizzi (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 15× “Respondents argued in district court that the arbitration provisions in their contracts were void and unenforceable under NRS 597.995. As its second argument for reversal, Fat Hat argues that NRS 597.”
Global Graphic Resources LLC v. Triunfo, Inc. (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 8× “” 4 Catalina also argues that if the court were to weigh Minnesota public policy against that of Nevada, 5 Nevada law still applies because the arbitration of sales representative claims is not a Minnesota 6 fundamental policy because the MTSRA allows its sales representatives…”
Triunfo, Inc. v. Global Graphic Resources LLC (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 8× “” 4 Catalina also argues that if the court were to weigh Minnesota public policy against that of Nevada, 5 Nevada law still applies because the arbitration of sales representative claims is not a Minnesota 6 fundamental policy because the MTSRA allows its sales representatives…”
Godhart v. Tesla, Inc. (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 7× “23 at 9 (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.995 ). 22 30 Doctor’s Assocs.”
King v. Robertson (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 5× “But NRS § 597.995 24 is preempted by the FAA.”
Munoz v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc. (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.995 , § 686A.310. 1 entered into with U-Haul is unenforceable.”
Munoz v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc. (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.995 , § 686A.310. 1 Muñoz then filed an amended complaint to address subject matter jurisdiction.”
Asire v. Carson City Sch. Dist. (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Under 15 Nevada law, arbitration agreements are presumptively “valid, enforceable[,] and irrevocable 16 except as otherwise provided in NRS 597.995 or upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for 17 the revocation of a contract.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.995(1) — 2 cases
Fat Hat, LLC v. Diterlizzi (Nev. 2016).
“Respondents argued in district court that the arbitration provisions in their contracts were void and unenforceable under NRS 597.995. As its second argument for reversal, Fat Hat argues that NRS 597.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.995(2) — 2 cases
Maide, LLC v. Dileo, 2022 NV 9 (Nev. 2022).
“Cogburn Law and Hunter S. Davidson and Jamie S. Cogburn, Henderson, for Respondents.”
Fat Hat, LLC v. Diterlizzi (Nev. 2016).
“Respondents argued in district court that the arbitration provisions in their contracts were void and unenforceable under NRS 597.995. As its second argument for reversal, Fat Hat argues that NRS 597.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.995(3) — 1 case
Fat Hat, LLC v. Diterlizzi (Nev. 2016).
“Respondents argued in district court that the arbitration provisions in their contracts were void and unenforceable under NRS 597.995. As its second argument for reversal, Fat Hat argues that NRS 597.”
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.