Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Cashman Equipment Co. V. West Edna Assocs., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sep. 29, 2016), Andrew Hart
Cashman Equipment Co. V. West Edna Assocs., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sep. 29, 2016), Andrew Hart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) NRS 108.2457(5)(e) precludes enforcement of an unconditional release from a bottom-tiered contractor to a higher-tiered contractor, when the higher-tiered contractor properly paid the middle-tiered contractor, but the middle-tiered contractor failed to pay the bottom-tiered contractor; and (2) that equitable fault analysis may not be used to reduce an award in a mechanic’s lien case.
Principal Investments V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 14, 2016), Katherine Maher
Principal Investments V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 14, 2016), Katherine Maher
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held unless the arbitration agreement commits the question to the arbitrator with “clear and unmistakable” language, a litigation-conduct waiver is presumptively for the court to decide because it is a waiver based on active litigation in court. Thus, the district court judge in this case did not err in addressing whether the moving party waived its right to arbitrate, instead of referring the question to the arbitrator.
Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey
Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the doctrine of mutual mistake is not grounds for rescission of a contract when the party bears the risk of mistake. The party bears the risk of mistake if the party is aware at the time of the formation of the contract that they only have limited knowledge of the facts to which the mistake relates, but treats that knowledge as sufficient, the court will allocate the risk of mistake to that party.
Golden Road Motor Inn, V. Islam, Et. Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Golden Road Motor Inn, V. Islam, Et. Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that non-compete agreements cannot extend further than what is reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the employer and cannot create an undue hardship on the employee. It also held that courts may not “blue line” (“blue pencil”) contracts, that is change or delete terms to make the Contract legal. The Court further held that altering player contact information, so long as the information can be restored with minimal disruption to the gaming company does not rise to the level of conversion. Finally, the Court held that a gaming company is not liable for …