(CN) - The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday issued a narrow ruling on an aspect of the ongoing Bill Cosby civil case, finding that a specific accusation of sexual assault by one woman doesn't meet the legal definition.

The decision is expected to hamper that woman's claim against the longtime comedian.

Cosby - born William Henry Cosby Jr. and long known for his television roles in shows like "The Cosby Show" - faces accusations in the Silver State from 10 women. The women claim Cosby drugged and incapacitated them before sexually abusing them. They've asked for compensatory and punitive damages for pain, emotional distress and medical expenses.  

Cosby, 88, sought in 2023 to have a federal judge dismiss the suit. He argued Senate Bill 129 - a state law that lifted the statute of limitations for civil claims by survivors of sexual violence - violated a prohibition on laws that only apply to a select group of people.

However, a judge decided in 2024 that the Legislature meant to address the uniquely intimate crime of sexual assault when they crafted Senate Bill 129.

The judge also ruled that sexual assault isn't a civil tort claim under Nevada law, leading her to dismiss those claims. The women also made claims including battery, assault, emotional distress and false imprisonment.

A question lingered from the ruling: whether someone who forces another person to masturbate them with their hand without consent equates to sexual assault.

Cosby argued in court documents that the woman didn't claim conduct that constitutes "sexual penetration." Because of that, Senate Bill 129 didn't apply to her complaint and couldn't be revived.

"This is not a close call," Cosby argued in his opening brief to Nevada's high court. "The plain and ordinary meaning of the statute requires that 'sexual penetration' involve an intrusion. ... Any other interpretation would render the definition nonsensical or, at the very least, unconstitutionally vague since it would criminalize entirely nonsexual conduct."

On Thursday, the Nevada Supreme Court decided that the legal definition of "sexual penetration" does require an intrusion. That means a perpetrator who forces another person to masturbate them does not commit sexual assault.

The women in their suit claim the assaults occurred between the late 1970s and early 1990s in Nevada. Some of them happened in the same Las Vegas hotel. They argue Cosby used his fame, power and prestige, claiming interest in helping their careers when intending to isolate and assault them.

The case before the high court involved a woman who claimed Cosby assaulted her in the late 1980s or early '90s in his hotel room.

"With respect to this certified question, there is no published Nevada precedent directly addressing the issue, and whether [the woman's] claims are time-barred depends on whether Cosby's conduct constitutes sexual assault," the high court said.

The high court turned to the dictionary for a definition of "intrusion." It also looked to the law to determine what type of intrusion qualifies for "sexual penetration."

"Given the statute's plain meaning, we conclude that a person does not commit a sexual penetration, and therefore does not commit sexual assault, by forcing their penis into another's hand," the court said.

Cosby has been accused by dozens of women of drugging and molesting them, and he spent almost three years in prison after he was found guilty of assaulting a college sports administrator.

A 2005 press release helped lead to Cosby's release from prison. It said Cosby would not be prosecuted because the evidence at the time made a conviction unattainable, but it also said the decision could be reconsidered "should the need arise."

Cosby sat for a deposition as part of a civil suit against him in 2005. He didn't invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel or to stay silent, and he admitted that he drugged the administrator and had access to quaaludes for use on young women.

Attorneys for both sides couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Source: Courthouse News Service