Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Eby V. Johnston Law Office, P.C., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sep. 08, 2022), Davit Sargsian
Eby V. Johnston Law Office, P.C., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sep. 08, 2022), Davit Sargsian
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the second amended complaint and reversed the decision to dismiss the remaining malpractice claim with prejudice. According to Nevada’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act, the Court held a non-lawyer agent working under a power of attorney regarding claims and litigation could not litigate an action pro se in place of the principal or engage in the practice of law on the principal’s behalf. The trial court correctly held that the appellant’s non-lawyer agent under a power of attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The decision to …
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (July 28, 2022), Christopher Sommers
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (July 28, 2022), Christopher Sommers
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an opinion drafted by Justice Cadish, the Court clarifies whether a plaintiff has the standing to assert a deceptive trade practice claim under NRS 41.600(1) when the plaintiff never purchased or used products manufactured by the defendant. The Court found that a plaintiff has standing as long as they can show they are directly harmed by the deceptive trade practices of the defendant. Additionally, it found that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts, including that they were directly harmed by the petitioner’s false and misleading advertising. Thus, the Court denied the defendant’s petition for writ relief.