Law Commons^™

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

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

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.

The Twin Aims Of Erie, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

We all remember the twin aims of the Erie rule from first-year civil procedure. A federal court sitting in diversity must use forum state law if it is necessary to avoid 'forum shopping" and the "inequitable administration of the laws." This Article offers a reading of the twin aims and a systematic analysis of their proper role in federal and state court. I argue that the twin aims apply in diversity cases not because they protect state interests, but because they serve the federal purposes standing behind the diversity statute. So understood, they are about separation of powers, not federalism. …

Setting The Statute Of Limitations In United States V. Home Concrete & Supply, Llc, 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012), Joan I. Oppenheimer

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Statute Of Limitations For Overstatements Of Basis, Richard T. Rice

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Not So Simple After All: A Comment On Ravndahl V. Saskatchewan, Dianne Pothier

Dianne Pothier Collection

Ravndahl became entitled to a survivor's pension under workers' compensation legislation upon the death of her husband in 1975, and disentitled upon remarriage in 1984. In 2000 she filed a statement of claim alleging the disentitlement constituted a section 15 Charter breach. The Saskatchewan government brought a pre-trial motion claiming the action was barred because of a six-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court of Canada assumed without deciding that the Charter applied. The author contends the Court should have affirmatively concluded that the Charter applies, on the basis that the claim is founded on the claimant's on-going status as …

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court recently decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps that Term’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …

Crisci V. Security Insurance Co.: The Dawn Of The Modern Era Of Insurance: Bad Faith And Emotional Distress Damages, Jeffrey E. Thomas

Faculty Works

Crisci v. Security Insurance Co. typifies the doctrine of "bad faith," one of the most interesting and important contributions of insurance law to the general body of law. It "typifies" the doctrine with its classic, if somewhat extreme, fact pattern, and with its reliance on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for the recognition of a cause of action that sounds in tort. Yet it also represents a potential for bad faith law that has not yet been fulfilled: the promise of emotional distress damages for an insurer's failure to settle.

This article explores both what Crisci …