Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date


Case Synopsis

The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss complaint based on anti-SLAPP statutes and the awarding of attorney fees and costs. The Court considered whether parts of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, NRS 41.637, are unconstitutionally vague, whether statements made in relation to a conservatorship action constitute an issue of public interest under NRS 41.637(4), and whether those statements fall within the scope of the absolute litigation privilege. The Court found that no, NRS 41.637 is not unconstitutionally vague; adopted a California test for determining an issue of public interest–and remanded the present case for further proceedings; and found that the district court did not conduct the specific, fact-intensive inquiry it needed to for the absolute litigation privilege, and accordingly reversed the district court’s order in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.