Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Summary Of Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association V. Clark County, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 46, Wayne Klomp
Summary Of Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association V. Clark County, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 46, Wayne Klomp
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
On a request for declaratory relief from Clark County and various citizens groups, the district court declared valid a zoning ordinance requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the Clark County Commissioners for the approval of all non-conforming zone change applications. The district court concluded on a motion for summary judgment that the ordinance was valid. Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association (“SNHA”) appealed the decision of the district court.
Summary Of Valley Electric Assoc. V. Overfield, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, Kathleen L. Fellows
Summary Of Valley Electric Assoc. V. Overfield, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, Kathleen L. Fellows
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An appeal challenging the award of attorney fees to landowners in an eminent domain action under NRS 18.010.
Summary Of Hantges V. City Of Henderson, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 32, Patti Ross
Summary Of Hantges V. City Of Henderson, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 32, Patti Ross
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A citizen has standing to challenge redevelopment plans, however the challenge must be done within the time proscribed under NRS 279.609. Additionally, the court held that the members of the City of Henderson’s Redevelopment Advisory Commission (“Advisory Commission”) were not “public officers” pursuant to NRS 281.4365 and therefore were not subject to the conflict of interest requirements of NRS 281.411 to 281.581.
Summary Of Mcdonald V. D.P. Alexander & Las Vegas Boulevard Llc, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 79, Anna Arroyo
Summary Of Mcdonald V. D.P. Alexander & Las Vegas Boulevard Llc, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 79, Anna Arroyo
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s holding that the purposes behind the exceptions to the one-action rule found in NRS 40.430 are to allow a sold-out junior lienholder recovery in certain situations. In particular, where the property has been automatically stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy code, the creditor is exempted from the one-action rule. Additionally, NRS 40.430(4)(j) allows a junior lienholder that is sold-out to proceed personally against the debtor instead of making futile attempts against the property. The exceptions are limited by the fact that the junior lienholder cannot have purchased the property.