Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 598A - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.050

Construction of chapter

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 598A.050  Construction of chapter.  The provisions of this chapter shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust statutes.

      (Added to NRS by 1975, 951)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig. (2019) ilsd · cites it 2× “Table B (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A.050 ).) The harmonization provision states "[t]he provisions of this chapter shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust statutes.”
In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation (2007) cand “§ 59-829 (“the courts of this state in construing [Nebraska’s antitrust statute] shall follow the construction given to the federal law by the federal courts”); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598A.050 (“The provisions of this chapter shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial…”
In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation (2009) cand “§ 59-829 (“the courts of this state in construing [Nebraska’s antitrust statute] shall follow the construction given to the federal law by the federal courts”); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598A.050 (“The provisions of this chapter [under Nevada law] shall be construed in harmony with…”
A.V.E.L.A., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC (2017) nysd “” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A.050. The NUPTA thus “appear[s] to require [Nevada] courts to reconcile entirely [Nevada] antitrust law with federal antitrust precedents.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC (2002) arizctapp “”); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 598A.050 (Michie Supp.”
In Re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation (2008) nysd “”); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598A.050 (2008) ("The provisions of this chapter shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust statutes.”
Nev. Recycling & Salvage, Ltd. v. Reno Disposal Co. (2018) nev “" NRS 598A.050 ; see also Boulware v. Nev., Dep't of Human Res.”
Time Insurance v. Astrazeneca AB (2014) paed “§ 59-829 (same); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598A.050 (same); N.H.Rev.”
St. Mary's Regional Medical Center v. Renown Health (2014) nvd · cites it 2× “0923(3) (providing that a knowing violation of certain federal statutes constitutes “deceptive trade practice” under the DPTA), with NRS § 598A.050 (“The provisions of [the UTPA] shall be construed in harmony with prevailing judicial interpretations of the federal antitrust…”
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson (2022) nvd “§ 598A.050 (acknowledging that “provisions of [NRS 598A.”
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.