Document Type
Case Summary
Publication Date
1-27-2023
Case Synopsis
To determine if a private right of action exists for a violation of a self-executing provision of the Nevada Constitution, the court applies a three-step test. First, the court asks whether the language and history of the constitutional provision established an indication of intent to provide or withhold the requested remedy. If answered negatively, the court then considers whether the several factors set forth in § 874A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts favors the requested remedy. Third, the Court considers if any special factors counsel hesitation in the recognition of monetary damages. In this case the Nevada Supreme Court held that a private right of action for money damages exists to vindicate violations of search-and-seizure rights under Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that qualified immunity cannot be used as a defense to claims under the same constitutional provision.
Recommended Citation
Bolliger, John, "Mack v. Williams, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Dec. 29, 2022)" (2023). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1548.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvscs/1548