Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Capanna, M.D. V. Orth, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Pengxiang Tian
Capanna, M.D. V. Orth, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Pengxiang Tian
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that Orth’s counsel violated the golden rule arguments, but opposing party’s substantial rights were not violated. Moreover, the district court’s ruling regarding plaintiff expert’s potential biases did not impose severe limitations on Capanna’s ability to fully cross-examine plaintiff’s expert. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Orth to supplement expert witness list and the award of attorney fees and costs was within the discretion of the district court. Lastly, Orth lacks standing in challenging the district court’s decision.
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. V. Gerrard, Esq., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 106 (Dec. 27, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. V. Gerrard, Esq., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 106 (Dec. 27, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Dolorfino V. Univ. Med. Ctr. Of S. Nev., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 4, 2018), Steven Brecher
Dolorfino V. Univ. Med. Ctr. Of S. Nev., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 4, 2018), Steven Brecher
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that a claim of injury suffered during medical treatment may not be dismissed for lack of a supporting affidavit from a medical expert if the injured body part is not “directly involved in” or “proximate” to the treatment, where those phrases are to be interpreted quite narrowly.