Nevada’s Supreme Court has rejected arguments that NRS 14.020 creates general jurisdiction over any business that maintains a registered agent in Nevada. In re: Goldstein Irrevocable Trust concerned a dispute about a trust, and one issue was whether the trustee bank was subject to general jurisdiction.
 
A beneficiary argued general jurisdiction was present and relied upon Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. ___ (2023). Mallory concluded that a Pennsylvania statute requiring a foreign corporation to consent to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania as a condition of doing business there did not violate due process. Pennsylvania’s statute explicitly states that registering to do business in Pennsylvania was consent to “exercise general personal jurisdiction.”

The beneficiary in In re: Goldstein Irrevocable Trust argued NRS 14.020 requires a business to appoint a resident agent in Nevada and thus was a consent to general jurisdiction. However, NRS 14.020 has no language expressly consenting to general jurisdiction like Pennsylvania’s equivalent. Further, NRS 77.440 expressly states appointing “a registered agent does not by itself create the basis for personal jurisdiction over the registered entity in this State.” Thus, Nevada, unlike Pennsylvania, does not presently have a statute that creates general jurisdiction over all businesses.

While Nevada does not presently have a general jurisdiction waiver such as Pennsylvania’s, Assembly Bill 158 in Nevada’s 2025 legislative session proposed expanding Nevada’s general jurisdiction to an entity that “is organized, registered, or qualified to do business pursuant to the laws of this State” – an attempt to bring Pennsylvania-style general jurisdiction to Nevada. The bill did not pass but could have exposed entities to lawsuits in Nevada that have nothing to do with the state, such as the underlying facts in In re: Goldstein Irrevocable Trust. It could have also led to extreme forum shopping because of the potential to sue entities anywhere.