WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 158

Revises provisions relating to jurisdiction. (BDR 2-845)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Erica Roth

AB 158 lets Nevada courts exercise general jurisdiction over many entities based on registration, consent, or substantial Nevada contacts, for any claim arising before or after.

(Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed.)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 158

AB 158 — Summary (Revises provisions relating to jurisdiction; BDR 2‑845)

Status: Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed.
Introduced: January 2025 (prefiled Jan 30, 2025). Fiscal note: no state or local fiscal effect reported.

Main purpose / intent

AB 158 expands and clarifies when Nevada courts may exercise general personal jurisdiction over business entities. The bill authorizes Nevada courts to assert general jurisdiction over a broad set of business entities in certain circumstances, and sets rules about the scope and timing of that jurisdiction.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new section to Chapter 14 of the Nevada Revised Statutes establishing bases for general personal jurisdiction over:
    • Corporations, LLCs, partnerships, business trusts, municipal corporations, and similar business entities (regardless of where created — Nevada, another state, or a foreign government).
  • A Nevada court may exercise general personal jurisdiction on the sole basis that the entity:
    1. Is organized, registered, or qualified to do business under Nevada law; or
    2. Expressly consents to Nevada jurisdiction; or
    3. Has sufficient contacts with Nevada such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (I.e., a due‑process test.)
  • Effect of exercising jurisdiction:
    • Any cause of action may be asserted or maintained in Nevada against the entity, even if the cause of action does not arise from the entity’s Nevada‑based acts.
    • If the entity discontinues the act(s) that gave rise to jurisdiction (e.g., withdraws registration), that discontinuance does not eliminate jurisdiction for acts, transactions, or omissions that occurred while the qualifying act continued.
  • Effective date / temporal application:
    • The amendatory provisions apply to actions commenced on or after October 1, 2025.

Who would be affected

  • Businesses that are organized in, registered or qualified to do business in, or otherwise have sufficient contacts with Nevada (including out‑of‑state and foreign entities).
  • Plaintiffs and defense counsel in civil litigation: plaintiffs potentially gain broader venue options; defendants face increased risk of being haled into Nevada courts for claims not arising from Nevada activities.
  • Nevada courts and litigants: potential rise in matters litigated in Nevada based on general jurisdiction claims.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Expands forum access for plaintiffs by allowing Nevada to assert general jurisdiction based solely on registration/qualification or consent — subject to constitutional limits.
  • Could increase litigation exposure for businesses that are registered or conduct substantial activities in Nevada, since claims unrelated to Nevada activities may be litigated there.
  • The bill includes a constitutional caveat by referencing the fair‑play/substantial‑justice standard; ultimate limits may be shaped by Nevada and U.S. constitutional jurisprudence (due process).
  • The provision preserving jurisdiction for acts that occurred while qualifying acts were in place prevents entities from avoiding Nevada jurisdiction simply by later withdrawing registration or ceasing activities.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Assembly passage recorded (Read third time and passed; ordered to the Senate on March 20, 2025). Committee referrals and hearings occurred thereafter. The bill cites an applicability date of October 1, 2025 for actions commenced on or after that date.
  • Final recorded status: “no further action allowed” under Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1 (April 12, 2025).

If you want, I can:
- Provide short illustrative examples of how the new jurisdictional tests would apply to typical corporate fact patterns; or
- Compare AB 158’s approach to general jurisdiction with current U.S. Supreme Court standards (e.g., Goodyear/Daimler jurisprudence).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.