The Court determined that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional tort and bad faith claims. Under comity principles, the Franchise Tax Board was entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap that would extend to Nevada businesses under NRS 41.035(1). The Court additionally recognized false light invasion of privacy as a tort cause of action distinct from other privacy torts, and adopted the Restatement’s sliding-scale approach in determining the amount of evidence necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Crooker, Rebecca L., "Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017)" (2017). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1123.