Urias v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 8, 2025)

NRS 484E.040 applies only to highways that are open to public access or to which individuals have access as invitees or licensees and therefore does not apply to private property

State v. Desavio, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (May 22, 2025)

DISMISSAL OF CLAIM WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPROPRIATE NEXT STEP WHEN STATE AGENCY FAILS TO REMEDY ONGOING PREJUDICE AGAINST INCOMPETENT DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF COURT ORDE

Price (Anthony) v. The Second Judicial District Court, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 17, 2024)

DISTRICT COURTS CANNOT FIND A FELONY DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AFTER A PRIOR INCOMPETENCY DETERMINATION WITHOUT INPUT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DIVISION OF PUBLIC AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

Whitley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc [Nevada], 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (July. 11, 2025)

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the “effects test” from Calder v. Jones applies only to intentional torts and was therefore inapplicable to the negligence claims in this case. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction because Greyhound’s alleged negligence did not arise from its contracts with Nevada

Photo 3

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvlba2025/1011/thumbnail.jp

Getting it Just Right: The Goldilocks Level of Securities Regulation

Across the world, developed economies use roughly the same framework to regulate entrepreneurial ventures raising capital. The minor differences in how developed countries regulate securities for emerging businesses lie primarily in their legal thresholds for fundraising caps, disclosure requirements, and the criteria for accredited investors. This uniform regulatory framework persists despite significant empirical evidence that the citizens of developed countries vary widely in their desire to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities, their perceptions of the number and quality of entrepreneurial opportunities available to them, and their perceptions of their own ability to succeed in entrepreneurship. This Article advocates for a new approach to securities regulation in the developed world that seeks to tilt the balance between capital formation and investor protection in the direction that best represents the entrepreneurial goals and desires of the citizenry. To date, legal scholars have written extensively about securities law reforms in the opposing directions of investor protection and capital formation for new ventures. Largely, these scholarly debates fall along partisan lines. This Article reframes the debate about striking the right balance between investor protection and capital formation by emphasizing that the citizenry being governed has opinions on how entrepreneurial activity and fundraising should function. This Article argues that those opinions should be an important factor in determining the securities regulations ultimately adopted in a given jurisdiction. In developing the idea of “getting it just right,” this Article looks at various metrics across many developed countries, then focuses on three key metrics and three securities regulation schemes. The key metrics studied are: the securities laws in each jurisdiction, the feelings of the citizenry toward entrepreneurship, and expert opinions of each jurisdiction’s fundraising environment. In combining first-of-its-kind comparative securities law research with empirical data from a highly-respected longitudinal study in its twenty-fifth year, this Article makes a significant contribution to the existing literature by providing a new way to balance the competing concerns of investor protection and capital formation in a way that is flexible, dynamic, and removes partisan considerations from the equation