Recent Posts

While you are here learning best practices to protect your business, consider taking the FREE Legal Checkup by clicking here.  A Legal Checkup diagnoses the relative strengths and weaknesses of your business, letting you know how you can best protect your investment and your livelihood.  Did we mention it is free?



In Nevada, the elements for a claim of invasion of privacy or appropriation of the name or likeness of another are:

  1. Defendant uses the name or likeness of a non-famous person;
  2. Without the permission of the person;
  3. The misappropriation of the person’s likeness or identity is a personal injury;
  4. Or gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another where the matter is of the kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and it not of legitimate concern to the public; and
  5. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for damages for mental anguish and embarrassment for the unwanted use of the private person’s name or image.

Kuhn v. Account Control Tech., Inc., 865 F.Supp. 1443, 1448 (D. Nev. 1994); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 895 P.2d 1269, 1278 (Nev. 1995); Montesano v. Donrey Media Grp., 99 Nev. 644, 668 P.2d 1081, 1084 (1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 959, 104 S. Ct. 2172, 80 L.Ed.2d 555 (1984) (citing Forsher v. Bugliosi, 26 Cal.3d 792, 163 Cal.Rptr. 628, 608 P.2d 716 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977).


See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library

Harriett E. Cummings, Esq., in her article entitled “The Role and Need for Settlement Judges in Appellate Cases” published in the Nevada Lawyer Magazine, explains that the Nevada Supreme Court Settlement Judges “aren’t traditional judges, because they do not decide the outcome of the matter on appeal. Rather, they assist the parties in communicating their positions and interests to each other, in order to promote understanding, reconciliation and a mutually acceptable solution to their dispute. Mediation provides the parties an opportunity to resolve their case themselves, guided by the settlement judge’s expertise in the mediation process.”

Cummings highlighted examples of how the program has settled over 50% of all matters referred to the program, a total of almost 5,000 cases that otherwise would have had to be decided by the Nevada Supreme Court.  One settlement judge commented the position “is one of the most rewarding aspects of my law practice. It is gratifying to step out of my usual role of advocate, to act as a quasi-judicial mediator — helping parties revisit their interests and positions in the litigation where one side has lost (and appealed) and one side has won. I enjoy the challenge of helping parties and their counsel see the benefit of creating a resolution to their dispute, and agree to a settlement, and thereby avoid the time and expense of the appellate process and further litigation. I like to think it’s a win-win for all involved: for the parties and for the courts.” Read the rest of the article here.


In 2013, Nevada’s legislature passed a law which holds that contracts failing to provide “specific authorization” that the parties have “affirmatively agreed” to an arbitration provision are “void and unenforceable.”  The law, Nevada Revised Statute 597.995, does not apply to collective bargaining agreements.  The legislature does not explain what is required in order to provide “specific authorization,” but presumably, a separate initial of the parties next to the arbitration provision would suffice to satisfy a tribunal.


In Nevada, the elements for a claim of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon the seclusion of another are:

  1. An intentional intrusion (physical or otherwise);
  2. On the solitude or seclusion of another;
  3. That would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
  4. Causation and damages.

Kuhn v. Account Control Technology, Inc., 865 F.Supp. 1443, 1448 (D. Nev. 1994); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 895 P.2d 1269, 1278 (Nev. 1995); M & R Investment Co. v. Mandarino, 103 Nev. 711, 748 P.2d 488, 493 (1987).


See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library

The following abstract explains Nevada’s parol evidence rule and its application to claims made in her courts.

Parol evidence is inadmissible “[w]hen parties reduce a contract to writing, all prior oral negotiations and agreements are merged in the writing, and the instrument must be treated as containing the whole contract, and parol [evidence] is not admissible to alter its terms.” Cage v. Phillips, 21 Nev. 150, 26 P. 60 (1891).   The parol evidence rule is based on the principle that a written contract is more reliable than oral testimony when determining the terms of an agreement. Michael B. Metzger, The Parol Evidence Rule: Promissory Estoppel’s Next Conquest?, 36 Vand. L. R. 1383, 1386-87 (1983) (hereinafter “Metzger”). (more…)

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On Linkedin