Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 600A - TRADE SECRETS (UNIFORM ACT)
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090 (2026)

Effect of chapter on other law and remedies

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 600A.090  Effect of chapter on other law and remedies.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

      2.  This chapter does not affect:

      (a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;

      (b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or

      (c) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 600A.035, criminal sanctions, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 21; A 1999, 2103)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 8× “The Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act NRS 600A.090 of the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act, titled “Effects of chapter on other law and remedies,” provides that: 1.”
Custom Teleconnect, Inc. v. Int'l Tele-Servs., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Nev. 2003). · cites it 4× “Preemption under NRS § 600A.090(1) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs common law tort claims: breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conversion are all…”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 5× “181 at 17 (quoting 21 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(2)(a)). She also stated that the Ninth Circuit, in acknowledging 22 disgorgement of profits as a remedy, was doing so in reference to the NUTSA claim, not the 23 breach of contract claim, which it did not revive.”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “The Nevada Supreme Court has therefore held that “[t]he plain language of NRS 600A.090 precludes a plaintiff from bringing a tort or restitutionary action ‘based upon’ misappropriation of a trade secret beyond that provided by the UTSA.”
ImageKeeper LLC v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Servs. LLC (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 4× “NRS § 600A.090, a specific provision in the UTSA, displaces conflicting 14 tort, restitutionary, and other laws permitting civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade 15 secret.”
Tomahawk Mfg., Inc. v. Spherical Indus., Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 4× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1). “A tort 21 claim conflicts with NUTSA if its proof depends on the defendant misappropriating a trade 22 secret.”
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 4× “” NRS § 600A.090(1). “A tort claim 13 conflicts with NUTSA if its proof depends on the defendant misappropriating a trade secret.”
Hybrid Int'l, LLC v. Scotia Int'l of Nevada (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 3× “They argue that the latter fails because it is 5 preempted by the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“NUTSA”), NRS 600A.090(1). 6 The Nevada Supreme Court has explained that a plaintiff must prove three elements to 7 prevail on a UTSA misappropriation of trade secrets claim: 8…”
Mission Healthcare Servs., LLC v. Battle Born Home Health, LLC (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 6 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1) (“[T]his chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other 7 law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”) (emphasis added).”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 2× “5 First, and oddly, Plaintiff cites NRS 600A.090(2)(a) as the basis for its revived breach of 6 contract claim.”
Allegiant Airline v. Aamg Mktg. Grp. (Nev. 2015). · cites it 3× “Under NRS Chapter 600A, governing trade secrets, NRS 600A.090 sets out the effect of the chapter on other laws and remedies, providing: 1.”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024). “But we also held that the district court erred with respect to H&H’s other claims because Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090, “displaced H&H’s common-law causes of action for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1) — 6 cases
Custom Teleconnect, Inc. v. Int'l Tele-Servs., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Nev. 2003). “Preemption under NRS § 600A.090(1) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs common law tort claims: breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conversion are all…”
Hybrid Int'l, LLC v. Scotia Int'l of Nevada (D. Nev. 2020). “They argue that the latter fails because it is 5 preempted by the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“NUTSA”), NRS 600A.090(1). 6 The Nevada Supreme Court has explained that a plaintiff must prove three elements to 7 prevail on a UTSA misappropriation of trade secrets claim: 8…”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024). “The Nevada Supreme Court has therefore held that “[t]he plain language of NRS 600A.090 precludes a plaintiff from bringing a tort or restitutionary action ‘based upon’ misappropriation of a trade secret beyond that provided by the UTSA.”
Mission Healthcare Servs., LLC v. Battle Born Home Health, LLC (D. Nev. 2023). “See 6 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1) (“[T]his chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other 7 law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”) (emphasis added).”
Tomahawk Mfg., Inc. v. Spherical Indus., Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1). “A tort 21 claim conflicts with NUTSA if its proof depends on the defendant misappropriating a trade 22 secret.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(2)(a) — 5 cases
Custom Teleconnect, Inc. v. Int'l Tele-Servs., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Nev. 2003). “Preemption under NRS § 600A.090(1) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs common law tort claims: breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conversion are all…”
Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000). “The Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act NRS 600A.090 of the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act, titled “Effects of chapter on other law and remedies,” provides that: 1.”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (D. Nev. 2025). “181 at 17 (quoting 21 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(2)(a)). She also stated that the Ninth Circuit, in acknowledging 22 disgorgement of profits as a remedy, was doing so in reference to the NUTSA claim, not the 23 breach of contract claim, which it did not revive.”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “5 First, and oddly, Plaintiff cites NRS 600A.090(2)(a) as the basis for its revived breach of 6 contract claim.”
Tomahawk Mfg., Inc. v. Spherical Indus., Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1). “A tort 21 claim conflicts with NUTSA if its proof depends on the defendant misappropriating a trade 22 secret.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(2)(b) — 4 cases
Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000). “The Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act NRS 600A.090 of the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act, titled “Effects of chapter on other law and remedies,” provides that: 1.”
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2025). “” NRS § 600A.090(1). “A tort claim 13 conflicts with NUTSA if its proof depends on the defendant misappropriating a trade secret.”
H&H Pharm., LLC v. Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024). “The Nevada Supreme Court has therefore held that “[t]he plain language of NRS 600A.090 precludes a plaintiff from bringing a tort or restitutionary action ‘based upon’ misappropriation of a trade secret beyond that provided by the UTSA.”
Tomahawk Mfg., Inc. v. Spherical Indus., Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.090(1). “A tort 21 claim conflicts with NUTSA if its proof depends on the defendant misappropriating a trade 22 secret.”
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.