Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport
Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for a state-law claim filed in federal court, stops running only while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after the state-law claim’s dismissal. Further, Nevada’s litigation malpractice rule, which does not apply to non-adversarial or transactional representation, or before the attorney files a complaint, tolls a litigation malpractice claim’s statute of limitations until the underlying litigation is resolved and damages are certain, preserving the statute of limitations under NRS 11.207(1) which requires a …
Waste Mgmt. Of Nev., Inc. V. W. Taylor Street, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Jun. 27, 2019), Trisha Delos Santos
Waste Mgmt. Of Nev., Inc. V. W. Taylor Street, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Jun. 27, 2019), Trisha Delos Santos
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the district court properly determined that garbage liens are perpetual; (2) that the district court erred in applying the lien perfection requirements contained in NRS 108.226; and (3) erred in applying the two-year statute of limitations contained in NRS 11.190(4)(b) to the foreclosure of those liens under NRS 444.520.Therefore, a garbage lien is not subject to a statute of limitations and a municipal waste management company may foreclose upon such a lien under NRS 444.520(4).
Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray
Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
As a matter of first impression, the Court found that the 45-day service requirement for review of administrative decisions is not a jurisdictional requirement because the statute allows for extension based on good cause. However, in the present case, appellant did not show good cause for late service. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition.