Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (24)
- Insurance (10)
- Arbitration (9)
- Civil Procedure (9)
- Discovery (9)
-
- Insurer (9)
- ADR Scholarship (8)
- Liability (8)
- Litigation (8)
- Policyholder (8)
- Coverage (7)
- Insured (7)
- Policy (7)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE (6)
- Life insurance (6)
- Summary judgment (6)
- Dispute resolution (5)
- Ethics (5)
- Settlement (5)
- Bad faith (4)
- Beneficiaries (4)
- Civil litigation (4)
- Contract (4)
- Disclosure (4)
- Judges (4)
- Jurisdiction (4)
- Pollution (4)
- Pretrial (4)
- Torts (4)
- Uniformity (4)
- Publication Year
Articles 31 - 60 of 304
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fitzgerald V. Mobile Billboards, L.L.C., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Fitzgerald V. Mobile Billboards, L.L.C., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Clark Cty. Office Of The Coroner/Med. Exam'r V. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24. (April 12, 2018) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella
Clark Cty. Office Of The Coroner/Med. Exam'r V. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24. (April 12, 2018) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRCP 62(d) and NRCP 62(e), state and local government appellants are generally entitled to a stay of a money judgment pending appeal, without needing to post a supersedeas bond or other security as a matter of right.
Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow
Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined that Justice Court Rule of Civil Procedure 98 requiring appeals in small claims court to be filed within five days was jurisdictional and mandatory. The district court cannot use its discretion to expand the time to appeal.
Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.
Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy
Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.
Estate Of Adams V. Fallini, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (December 29, 2016), Krystina Viernes
Estate Of Adams V. Fallini, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (December 29, 2016), Krystina Viernes
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered whether a party may appeal a district court’s order granting an NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a final judgment for fraud upon the court. The Court held the district court’s order interlocutory and may not be appealed until a final judgment is entered.The Court held that the district court was not barred from considering the NRCP 60(b) motion and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief based on fraud upon the court.
Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker
Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional tort and bad faith claims. Under comity principles, the Franchise Tax Board was entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap that would extend to Nevada businesses under NRS 41.035(1). The Court additionally recognized false light invasion of privacy as a tort cause of action distinct from other privacy torts, and adopted the Restatement’s sliding-scale approach in determining the amount of evidence necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Mendenhall V. Tassinari, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Oct. 5, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker
Mendenhall V. Tassinari, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Oct. 5, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that after a final judgment, pursuant to an Offer of Judgment under NRCP 68 offer is entered, both claim preclusion and the terms of the offer apply when a party seeks to relitigate claims. This is true even if the claim arises from facts discovered during the offer’s ten-day irrevocable acceptance period.
City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith
City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reviewed an appeal to determine whether an appellant: (1) “properly sought the disclosure of public records by a writ of mandamus,” and (2) whether medical marijuana establishments (“MMEs”) business license identifying information must be disclosed pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act. The Court held that NRS 239.011 provides the specific means by which to challenge the disclosure of public records, and thus Respondent properly filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Additionally, pursuant to NRS 453A.370(5), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public and Behavior Health (“Division”) has the proper authority to adopt …
Wynn Resorts, Ltd. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 27, 2017), Elise Conlin
Wynn Resorts, Ltd. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 27, 2017), Elise Conlin
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-client privilege related to discovery documents. The Court also adopted the “because of” test with a “totality of the circumstances” standard to determine when a document falls under the work-product privilege.
Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker
Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that parties must timely assert the one-action rule as an affirmative defense in their response pleadings. If not, it is waived. As such, the District Court erred when it granted Respondent Beavor’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the one-action rule because he failed to raise that defense in a timely manner.
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Bd. Of Review V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (June 22, 2017), Skyler Sullivan
Bd. Of Review V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (June 22, 2017), Skyler Sullivan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Naming all relevant parties as defendants, pursuant to NRS 612.530(1), is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. Failure to follow this statutory requirement deprives the district court of its jurisdiction to hear a petition for judicial review.
Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang
Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a summary judgment is proper when the opposing party did not file a substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment and (2) a class certification is inappropriate when the plaintiff/appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating “numerosity, commonality, and typicality,” and the ability to “fairly and adequately” represent the class members when an earlier-filed grievance between the union and taxi company resolved the minimum wage back-pay dispute at issue.
O'Neal V. Hudson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (June 1, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski
O'Neal V. Hudson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (June 1, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
If a party timely sends a motion for new trial directly to the presiding judge in an email, then that motion is properly filed and will toll the time available to file a notice of appeal so long as: (1) the presiding judge allows the motion to be filed with that judge; and, (2) the presiding judge accepts the motion within the required time-period.
In Re Davis Family Heritage Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 25, 2017)., Ping Chang
In Re Davis Family Heritage Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 25, 2017)., Ping Chang
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings
In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) when a parent is deemed incompetent to stand a criminal trial, there is no statutory authority requiring the district court to continue a parallel parental rights termination trial so that the parent can regain competence; and (2) when a litigant fails to object to the State’s method of service in initial pleadings or during trial, the litigant waives all challenges to the service of a parental rights termination by publication.
Trp Int’L, Inc. V. Proimtu Mmi Llc, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Apr. 6, 2017), Elise Conlin
Trp Int’L, Inc. V. Proimtu Mmi Llc, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Apr. 6, 2017), Elise Conlin
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that an order granting a motion to reconsider and vacate the final judgment is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. There is no final judgment if that motion to vacate is granted; thus, there cannot be a special order after a final judgment.
Saticoy Bay Llc V. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 26, 2017), Karson Bright
Saticoy Bay Llc V. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 26, 2017), Karson Bright
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, and thus, the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint was mandatory. However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because the district court mischaracterized NRS 116.3116(6) as a statute of limitations when it only limits the amount of actionable unpaid HOA assessments. Finally, the Court found that appellant’s subsequent action would not be barred by statute of limitations.
Telling Stories In The Supreme Court: Voices Briefs And The Role Of Democracy In Constitutional Deliberation, Linda H. Edwards
Telling Stories In The Supreme Court: Voices Briefs And The Role Of Democracy In Constitutional Deliberation, Linda H. Edwards
Scholarly Works
On January 4, 2016, over 112 women lawyers, law professors, and former judges told the world that they had had an abortion. In a daring amicus brief that captured national media attention, the women “came out” to their clients; to the lawyers with or against whom they practice; to the judges before whom they appear; and to the Justices of the Supreme Court.
The past three years have seen an explosion of such “voices briefs,” 16 in Obergefell and 17 in Whole Woman’s Health. The briefs can be powerful, but their use is controversial. They tell the stories of non-parties—strangers …
Notes From A Quiet Corner: User Concerns About Reinsurance Arbitration – And Attendant Lessons For Selection Of Dispute Resolution Forums And Methods, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Notes From A Quiet Corner: User Concerns About Reinsurance Arbitration – And Attendant Lessons For Selection Of Dispute Resolution Forums And Methods, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
Arbitration between insurers and reinsurers – those who insure insurance companies – should logically run as smoothly as any arbitration process. Like the traditional commercial arbitration that drove enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act, reinsurance arbitration involves experienced actors in a confined industry in which the parties should be constructively aware of the rules, norms, customs and practices of the industry. But in spite of this, reinsurance arbitration experiences consistent problems of which the participants complain. This article reviews the complaints and exams possible solutions – including the possibility of arbitrating less and litigating more. Although these possible solutions would …
Asymmetry And Adequacy In Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications In Haeger V. Goodyear, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Asymmetry And Adequacy In Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications In Haeger V. Goodyear, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
In this article, Professor Jeffrey Stempel explores the implications the decision in Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. has for discovery and civil procedure. Professor Stempel argues the troublesome narrative that discovery problems and "abuse" are largely problems of claimants seeking excessive discovery that is unduly burdensome and costly relative to the case at hand is a significant part of the problem. Since the mid-1970s, the prevailing narrative has blamed discovery seekers more than discovery resisters.In that narrative, discovery problems are largely the problems of plaintiffs that are too unrealistic, sloppy, lazy, or greedy in frequently seeking excessive discovery. …
Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson
Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that: (1) the six-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(1)(a) applies to claims for enforcement of a property distribution provision in a divorce decree; and (2) the statute of limitations period in an action on a divorce decree commences “from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given.”
Humboldt Gen. Hosp. V. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Jul. 28, 2016), Rob Schmidt
Humboldt Gen. Hosp. V. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Jul. 28, 2016), Rob Schmidt
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that allegations raising the scope of informed consent rather than the absence of consent to a medical procedure, even when pleaded as a battery action, constitute medical malpractice claims, and are subject to the NRS 41A.071 requirement for a medical expert affidavit.
Badger V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., F. Shane Jackson
Badger V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., F. Shane Jackson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. Petitioner Darrin D. Badger (“Petitioner”) sought summary judgment in a breach of guaranty action against him and dismissal of a complaint of a deficiency judgment against him in connection with a foreclosure. After the court denied Petitioner’s motions, he filed the instant petition. The Court granted the petition, holding that a party may not use the relation back provision of NRCP 15(c) to circumvent the requirement in NRS 40.455(1) that an application for a …
Mcclendon V. Collins, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (April 21, 2016), Colton Loretz
Mcclendon V. Collins, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (April 21, 2016), Colton Loretz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The issue here is whether a witness originally designated as a testifying expert who is then later de-designated may be deposed or called to testify at trial by an opposing party. The Court held that after an expert report has been disclosed, a testifying expert witness cannot regain the confidentiality protections of NRCP 26(b)(4)(B) by being de-designated as a non-testifying expert. The Court reasoned that after an expert witness loses protection under the statute that it is at the discretion of the district court as to whether the expert may be deposed or called to testify at trial by an …
Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich
Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined that (1) a district court may consider supplements to a party’s timely filed exceptions to a water rights determination; and (2) the district court’s determination of water rights was supported by substantial evidence.
Hunter V. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2016), Brandonn Grossman
Hunter V. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2016), Brandonn Grossman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Court of Appeals considered a consolidated appeal from a final district court order dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice for a want of prosecution and a post judgment order awarding attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeals determined the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, reversed the district court’s dismissal, vacated its award of fees and costs, and remanded.
Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.
Hairr V. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016), Douglas H. Smith
Hairr V. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016), Douglas H. Smith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district court’s discretion. If granted, this writ would have compelled the district court to grant the petitioners’ application to intervene under Rule 24 of the Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure as defendants in a constitutional challenge to a program that awards grants to children who are educated by entities other than public schools. The State is presumed to adequately represent the interests of those who support the bill. Since they did not demonstrate a conflict of interest with the State’s position or present an argument …