Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lane v. Allstate Insurance

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1998No. 25670Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Shearing

*1182I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

I agree that NRS 200.620 prohibits the recording of telephone conversations without the consent of both parties to the conversation, unless authorized or ratified by the court. The prohibited conduct is punishable as “a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.” NRS 200.690(l)(a). In addition, the violator is liable to the person whose communication was intercepted without his consent for damages. NRS 200.690(l)(b).

The plurality opinion would excuse Lane’s conduct on the basis that Lane did not intend to violate state law, even though he…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Whiterock v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API