Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert
State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that NRS 604A.408(2)(f) bars a licensee from bringing any type of enforcement action on a refinancing loan under the statute. This is because allowing for enforcement action would go against the legislative purpose of the statute.
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.
Pizarro-Ortega V. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Hart
Pizarro-Ortega V. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Hart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court held that future medical expenses are a category of damages to which NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C)’s computation requirement applies, and that a plaintiff is not absolved of complying with NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C) simply because the plaintiff’s treating physician has indicated in medical records that future medical care is necessary.
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.
Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 25, 2016), F. Shane Jackson
Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 25, 2016), 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 to dismiss. Petitioner Nevada Department of Transportation (“NDOT”) sought dismissal of a professional negligence claim filed against it on grounds that the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney affidavit and expert report as required by NRS 11.258, and when the court denied NDOT’s motion, it filed the instant petition. The Court denied the petition, holding that NDOT is not a design professional under NRS 11.2565(1)(a), and therefore the requirements of NRS 11.258 are inapplicable to NDOT since the action would not …
Piroozi V. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015), Jessie Folkestad
Piroozi V. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015), Jessie Folkestad
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district court barring petitioners, Dr. Piroozi and Dr. Blahnik, from arguing comparative fault of settled defendants at trial and including those defendants’ names on the verdict forms. In granting the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Nevada resolved a conflict between NRS 41.141(3) and NRS 41A.045, holding that NRS 41A.045 preempts NRS 41.141(3) and entitles a defendant to argue the percentage of fault of settled defendants at trial and to include the settled defendant’s names on the jury verdict form.
Harrison V. Roitman, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall
Harrison V. Roitman, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that absolute immunity applies to party-retained expert witnesses as well as court appointed witnesses. Party-retained expert witnesses have absolute immunity from suits for damages arising from statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.
Frazier V. Drake, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Sep. 3, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Frazier V. Drake, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Sep. 3, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court of Appeals determined that (1) when three of the good-faith Beattie factors weigh in favor of the party that rejected the offer of judgment, the reasonableness of the fees requested by the offeror becomes irrelevant, and cannot, by itself, support a decision to award attorney fees to the offeror and (2) expert witness fees in excess of $1,500 now have factors to take into consideration in awarding such fees.
Summary Of C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. V. Bank Of America, N.A., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 61553 (July 2, 2015), Stacy Newman
Summary Of C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. V. Bank Of America, N.A., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 61553 (July 2, 2015), Stacy Newman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considers an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a tort case concerning losses sustained due to unauthorized activity in a customer’s bank account. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether respondent Bank of America acted reasonably in delivering bank statements, and also because the appellant’s suit was not time barred under a one year period of repose.