Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Appeal (5)
- Civil (2)
- Administrative Agency (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appellate (1)
-
- Assumption of the Risk (1)
- Attorney Fees (1)
- Attorney-Client Privilege (1)
- Auerbach Test (1)
- Business (1)
- Business Judgment Rule (1)
- Business Law (1)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE FINAL JUDGMENT; FRAUD (1)
- CIVIL: ATTORNEYS FEES AS SANCTIONS (1)
- Child Custody (1)
- Civil Appeals (1)
- Commercial Lease (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Construction defect (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Defamation (1)
- Derivative Claim (1)
- Diet (1)
- Direct Harm Test (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Discretionary Function Immunity (1)
- Divorce (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Extraordinary Writ Relief (1)
- FHA (1)
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
Mccrosky V. Carson Tahoe Reg’L Med. Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 115 (Dec. 28, 2017), Xheni Ristani
Mccrosky V. Carson Tahoe Reg’L Med. Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 115 (Dec. 28, 2017), Xheni Ristani
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that vicarious liability is not abrogated by NRS 41A.045or by settling with one tortfeasor, unless the settlement so provides. Further, whether an ostensible agency exception exists is a question of fact that must be determined by the jury. Finally, after finding that federal law preempts NRS 42.021, the Court reverted to the per se rule in Nevada that collateral source payments may not be admitted into evidence.
Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Grp., L.L.C. V. Higco, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 114 (Dec. 28, 2017), Tamara Cannella
Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Grp., L.L.C. V. Higco, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 114 (Dec. 28, 2017), Tamara Cannella
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held the declaratory judgment exception to claim preclusion applies when the initial action sought only declaratory relief.
Hawkins V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 28, 2017), Rex Martinez
Hawkins V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 28, 2017), Rex Martinez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court must consider the factors from the Third Restatement when imposing sanctions in the form of attorney fees on parties.
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. V. Payo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 26, 2017), Alma Orozco
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. V. Payo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 26, 2017), Alma Orozco
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Implied assumption of the risk does not apply when a student is required to participate in a physical education class because the doctrine’s “voluntariness” element is not satisfied. Discretionary-function immunity does not apply when cases allege inadequate supervision or instruction because such decisions, while discretionary, are not policy-based, as the discretionary-immunity test requires. Decisions are not entitled to discretionary-function immunity unless they entail governmental planning or policy formulation, which involves economic, social, and political considerations.
Fredianelli V. Price, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 74. (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella
Fredianelli V. Price, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 74. (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRS 18.015, attorneys are permitted to obtain attorney fees through the enforcement of a retaining lien. If the attorney satisfies all elements of NRS 18.015, then properly moves the district court to enforce the lien, the district court can actively enforce the retaining lien and award the attorney a monetary judgment.
Adelson V. Harris, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Sept. 27, 2017) (En Banc), David E. Chavez
Adelson V. Harris, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Sept. 27, 2017) (En Banc), David E. Chavez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court (en banc) held that (1) a hyperlink to source material concerning a judicial proceeding may qualify as a report within the common law fair report privilege; and (2) Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, as effective prior to the 2013 amendment, reaches communication “aimed at procuring any governmental or electoral action,” even if it is not addressed to a government agency.
Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez
Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that, without notice, a permanent change to custody and visitation violates due process rights, and the affected party must be given the opportunity to respond and rebut the evidence. Further, when the district court conducts an alternative interview with a child, the interviews must be recorded and comply with the Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act.
High Noon At Arlington Ranch Homeowners Ass’N V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Sept. 27, 2017) (En Banc), Homero Gonzalez
High Noon At Arlington Ranch Homeowners Ass’N V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Sept. 27, 2017) (En Banc), Homero Gonzalez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRS Chapters 40 and 116, homeowners associations (HOAs) have the representational standing to represent all homeowners who purchase their homes after litigation is commenced by or against the HOAs. However, the Court clarified that there is no such representational standing to bring or continue to pursue a case on behalf of homeowners who sell their units after litigation has begun.
Parametric Sound Corp. V. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Sep. 14, 2017), Lucy Crow
Parametric Sound Corp. V. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Sep. 14, 2017), Lucy Crow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court clarified its holding in Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc. by adopting the Delaware direct harm test to determine whether a shareholder’s claim is direct or derivative. Under the direct harm test, the Court asks (1) who suffered alleged harm, and (2) who would receive benefit from recovery or another remedy? If the shareholder cannot establish a claim without showing injury to the corporation, the shareholder’s claim fails.
Paliotta V. State Dep’T Of Corrections, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Sept. 14, 2017), Anna Sichting
Paliotta V. State Dep’T Of Corrections, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Sept. 14, 2017), Anna Sichting
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined it must consider the sincere religious beliefs of the individual when evaluating claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). It is improper to evaluate those claims under the centrality test, which attempts to determine if the individual’s beliefs are central to a tenant of the religion in question. Once the sincere belief is shown, the courts must then fully examine the remaining considerations under the Free Exercise Clause and the RLUIPA.
In Re Dish Network Derivation Litig., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Sept. 14, 2017), Joseph K. Fabbi
In Re Dish Network Derivation Litig., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Sept. 14, 2017), Joseph K. Fabbi
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the Auerbach test should be applied when a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) files a motion to defer a derivative claim. A derivative claim is dismissible if the SLC was independent and conducted a good faith investigation when it concluded litigation would not be in the company’s best interest.
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 14, 2017), Carmen Gilbert
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 14, 2017), Carmen Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional bad-faith tort claims. The Court also expressly adopted the false light invasion of privacy right of action in order to fully protect privacy interests. The Court also adopted the sliding scale approach for evaluating IIED claims, holding that increased severity of conduct will require less evidence to prove emotional distress.
Rural Tel. Co. V. Pub. Util. Comm’N Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 3, 2017), Marco Luna
Rural Tel. Co. V. Pub. Util. Comm’N Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 3, 2017), Marco Luna
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing Rural Telephone Company’s (Rural Telephone) petition for judicial review against the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) because the district court did not have authority to grant Rural Telephone’s request for an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities, through statute or through its inherent authority.
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.
Renfroe V. Lakeview Loan Serv., L.L.C., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 27, 2017), Christopher Kelly
Renfroe V. Lakeview Loan Serv., L.L.C., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 27, 2017), Christopher Kelly
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the NRS 116.3116 provisions that grant homeowners’ associations (HOAs) superpriority lien status for delinquent HOA dues are not preempted by federal law when the first deed of trust on the property in question is insured through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA insurance program at issue contemplates HOA lien priority schemes like NRS 116.3116 specifically. Mortgagees can comply with relevant state and federal law without stifling the purpose of the federal law, and therefore, preemption does not apply.
Rawson V. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 29, 2017), Hunter Davidson
Rawson V. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 29, 2017), Hunter Davidson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted the NRS 17.030–17.080 judgment debtor statutes and found: (1) that a joint debtor action gives rise to a final, appealable judgment that precludes review through a petition for extraordinary writ relief; and (2) that the principles governing extraordinary writ relief prevent a petitioner from challenging a void order when the petitioner had the opportunity to appeal the challenged order.
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.
Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly
Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) family courts have subject matter jurisdiction in divorce proceedings that involve issues otherwise outside the scope of family courts, (2) parol evidence may not be considered to determine party intent to form separate property agreements and self-settled spendthrift trusts where the written agreements are valid and unambiguous, (3) a court order equalizing assets between different spendthrift trusts is improper because the NRS protects against court orders that move assets from trusts and against moves that do not benefit trust beneficiaries, (4) spendthrift trusts may not be reached for payment of personal obligations not known at …