Lane v. Allstate Insurance

I concur in the judgment of the court reversing the trial court because it is clear that Mr. Lane could not have intentionally violated NRS 200.620. Only three members of this court can agree as to what the statute means. We certainly cannot hold Mr. Lane criminally responsible for violating a statute the meaning of which cannot be agreed upon by the members of this court.1

I cannot agree with the majority that under Nevada law it is a crime for one party to a two-party telephone conversation to tape-record that conversation. The majority holds that one who tape-records his own telephone…