Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Appeal (5)
- Defamation (4)
- Civil (3)
- Administrative Agency (2)
- Foreclosure (2)
-
- HOA (2)
- Lien (2)
- Medical malpractice (2)
- Negligence (2)
- Torts (2)
- Trusts (2)
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (1)
- Absolute Privilege to Publish (1)
- Agents (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appellate (1)
- Assignability of Judgment (1)
- Assumption of the Risk (1)
- Attorney Fees (1)
- Attorney-Client Privilege (1)
- Attorneys (1)
- Auerbach Test (1)
- BUSINESS LAW (1)
- Battery (1)
- Benefits (1)
- Business (1)
- Business Judgment Rule (1)
- Business Law (1)
- CIVIL APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY (1)
- CIVIL APPEAL: ANTITRUST (1)
Articles 61 - 70 of 70
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley
Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determine that the decision of the State Contractors’ Board closing homeowners’ complaint and directing contractor to make repairs to residence was not a final decision resolving a contested case, as required to preclude a homeowner from relitigating whether contractor was required to have an electrical license. The Court also determine that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor needed an electrical license and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor completed its contractual obligations to homeowner.
Goodwin V. Jones, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 03, 2016), Rob Schmidt
Goodwin V. Jones, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 03, 2016), Rob Schmidt
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court of Appeals held that because the employee did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate she made a reasonable, good-faith attempt to maintain her certification, the employee’s failure to maintain certification required by her employer constituted misconduct within the meaning of NRS 612.385.
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 …
Corp. Bishop, Lds V. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Jan. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren
Corp. Bishop, Lds V. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Jan. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a State Engineer did not improperly apply NRS § 533.3705(1) retroactively or constitute a retroactive application for two reasons: (1) the statute unambiguously applies to only approved applications; and (2) the applications at issue were approved almost five years after the statute took effect. Thus, the Court denied petitioner’s request for extraordinary writ attempting to bar the State Engineer from applying NRS § 533.3705(1) to the disputed water permit applications.
In Re Guardianship & Estate Of Echevarria, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
In Re Guardianship & Estate Of Echevarria, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Distribution of estate funds under NRS Chapter 159 or a court’s distribution order requires a district court finding identifying the source of the funds. A valid stipulation requires mutual assent either through the presence of all interested parties or a signed writing showing the assent of the party against whom the stipulation is offered.
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that Carson City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) 8.04.050(1) is (1) unconstitutionally overbroad because it “is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words” and (2) vague because it lacked sufficient guidelines and gave the police too much discretion in its enforcement.
State, Emp’T. Sec. Div. V. Murphy, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall
State, Emp’T. Sec. Div. V. Murphy, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that employees who are terminated from employment for absence due to incarceration, and are later convicted of a crime, are not eligible for unemployment benefits. These employees are contrasted with those who are incarcerated, but remained incarcerated due to indigence, or were not convicted due to unsupported charges. The latter group may be eligible for unemployment benefits.
Summary Of Barrett V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 65, Laura Guidry
Summary Of Barrett V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 65, Laura Guidry
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined one issue: 1) whether a defendant subcontractor must provide NRS Chapter 40 prelitigation notice, which is statutorily followed by an opportunity to repair, prior to filing a fourth-party complaint against a supplier.
Summary Of Jacobs V. Adelson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 44, Kylee Gloeckner
Summary Of Jacobs V. Adelson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 44, Kylee Gloeckner
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether the absolute privilege rule applies to statements made to the media.