Nevada

Grade: A

Nevada has an excellent anti-SLAPP law. It was enacted in 1993 and amended in 2013.

Jurisdiction Statute or Case Law? Any Forum? Any Public Issue? Mandatory Attorney Fees/Costs? Additional Burden? Amendment After Grant? Amendment While Pending? Immediate Appeal?
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. section 41.635-670 (1993) Y Y Y ? ? N
 

NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 41.635 – 41.670 (1993):

Communications aimed at procuring government outcome; or informing or complaining to government regarding matter reasonably of concern to the government body; or made in direct connection with issue under consideration by government body, that is truthful or made without knowledge of falsity are protected. Under NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.670(2), SLAPP defendant may bring a separate action (SLAPPback) to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees, and the costs of bringing the separate action.

Update: The statute was amended in 2013 to expand the breadth and scope of protected speech and other ways to strengthen the law. It has been found to be Constitutional - you can read more about that here.

 

Nevada SLAPP Stories:

Featured
Review-Journal, AP file motion for legal fees
Review-Journal, AP file motion for legal fees

Two news outlets filed a motion under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law asking the lawyer of widow of a Metro Police Officer to pay their legal fees.

Read More →
Good News: Nevada's Strong Anti-SLAPP Law is Constitutional
Good News: Nevada's Strong Anti-SLAPP Law is Constitutional

From Mike Masnick at Techdirt: For many, many years we’ve talked about the importance of strong anti-SLAPP laws. In case you’re new to the subject, SLAPP stands for a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In short, SLAPP suits are lawsuits where it is fairly obvious that the intent of the lawsuits is to stifle free speech, rather than for a legitimate purpose under the law...

Read More →
Nevada May Be About to Lose Its Great Anti-SLAPP Law
Nevada May Be About to Lose Its Great Anti-SLAPP Law

Another piece of the proposed changes to Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law, this time from our friends over at Techdirt:

"We’ve mentioned many times the importance of anti-SLAPP laws in protecting people who are being sued solely to try to shut them up. It’s still a travesty that we don’t have a federal anti-SLAPP law but are reliant on various state anti-SLAPP laws. In case you’re not familiar with them, SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” Anti-SLAPP laws basically allow people who are sued to quickly get lawsuits dismissed when it’s obvious that the entire point of the lawsuit is to silence whoever is being sued, rather than for any legitimate legal purpose. For years, California was seen as having one of the best anti-SLAPP laws, but in recent years both Texas and Nevada upped the ante in anti-SLAPP laws, making them even stronger. Nevada’s had a particularly useful feature: it would award “reasonable costs, attorney’s fees and monetary relief” for defendants who were wrongfully hit with SLAPP suits. Basically, it provided a real deterrent against SLAPP suits.

Read More →
Why Are Nevada State Senators Trying to Eviscerate the State's Anti-SLAPP Statute
Why Are Nevada State Senators Trying to Eviscerate the State's Anti-SLAPP Statute

From our friend Popehat:

"In 2013 Nevada passed the strongest anti-SLAPP statutes in the United States. This statute was muscular. Not only did it cover a wide array of speech, and require substantial proof of the potential validity of a claim, it had frills like a potential $10,000 penalty on top of attorney fees for SLAPPers and a private cause of action so targets of SLAPP suits could sue their tormentors. My friend and colleague Marc Randazza, First Amendment badass, helped frame it, which is why it was so strong. It’s already proven effective in Nevada’s courts. It’s an excellent tool to protect free speech from meritless lawsuits.

So who in the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to kill it, and why?"

Read more here.

Read More →