The Increasing Californication of Nevada’s Anti-Slapp Jurisprudence
January 1, 2019, The Writ, “Appellate Briefs”
In 2015, the Nevada legislature amended Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute to require that the “plaintiff must meet the same burden of proof that a plaintiff has been required to meet pursuant to California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation law as of June 8, 2015.” NRS 41.665(2). During the debate over this amendment, Senator Brower remarked: “While this Committee is well aware of our general propensity of not wanting to be like California, I would respectfully submit that on this issue, California has done a pretty good job.” Hearing on S.B. 444 Before the Assembly Comm. on Judiciary, 78th Leg. (Nev., Apr. 24,2015). The Nevada Supreme Court recently followed the legislature’s lead and adopted “California’s framework” for evaluating whether an attorney’s statement summarizing a jury’s verdict fell within the scope of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute. Patin v. Lee, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 15, 2018). While there is certainly value in looking to opinions from jurisdictions with similar statutes, there is also considerable risk as the interpretation of those courts depends not only on the statute in question but also on their own unique body of law and separate statutory framework. To read the entire article click here.
About McDonald Carano
McDonald Carano has been shaping Nevada’s legal, business, and policy landscape since our founding in 1949. With more than 60 lawyers and government affairs professionals working from offices in Reno, Las Vegas, and Carson City, we are Nevada’s law firm for business. Our local, national and international clients include Fortune 500 corporations, fast-growth and mid-market companies, entrepreneurs and startups, non-profit organizations, government entities, and high-net-worth individuals. Our attorneys deliver cross-discipline, one-stop, business law and government affairs counsel. Please visit mcdonaldcarano.com
You have chosen to send an email to McDonald Carano. The sending or receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you.
I have read this and want to send an email.