Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Re Fund For Encouragement Of Self Rel., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Apr. 25, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon
In Re Fund For Encouragement Of Self Rel., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Apr. 25, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS § 163.556 does not permit a court to disregard trustees' objections and appoint half of a wholly charitable trust’s assets to a new trust when, pursuant to the trust instrument’s terms, all trustees must consent before distributing half of the trust’s assets.
State, Dep’T Of Bus. & Indus. V. Titlemax, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 26, 2019), Alexis Taitel
State, Dep’T Of Bus. & Indus. V. Titlemax, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 26, 2019), Alexis Taitel
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an en banc opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether title lender TitleMax’s Grace Period Deferment Agreement (“GPPDA”), which applied to short-term, high-interest loans offered to Nevada consumers in 2014 and 2015, qualified as a true grace period under NRS 604A.210. The Court concluded that the GPPDA was not a true grace period, but was instead an impermissible extension of the 210-day loans. The Court reasoned that the GPPDA was an extension because TitleMax charged borrowers additional interest during the extended period and thus violated NRS 604A.445, a statute enacted by the Nevada Legislature in part to protect consumers …
State, Dep’T Of Bus. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Shady Sirsy
State, Dep’T Of Bus. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Shady Sirsy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court determined that NRS 604A.480(2)(f) bars a licensee from bringing any type of enforcement action on a refinancing loan made under NRS 604A.480(2) and is not merely a condition precedent to making a refinancing loan under the subsection.
Okada V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 11, 2018) (En Banc), Paloma Guerrero
Okada V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 11, 2018) (En Banc), Paloma Guerrero
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that application of NRS § 463.120(6), as enacted in 2017 through Senate Bill 376, which protects certain information and data provided to the gaming authorities, does not apply to information requested before the effective date of the statute. From the plain language of the act that the privilege applies to “any request made on or after the effective date of this act,” the Court concluded that the privilege applies prospectively only and does not apply to any request made before the effective date of this act.
Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS 41A was not intended to clarify the previous statute’s original intent; and (2) The 2015 Legislature intended for the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS Chapter 41A to apply prospectively.
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.
Ugly American Hermeneutics, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Ugly American Hermeneutics, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Scholarly Works
This article will appear in a Symposium on comparative legal hermeneutics that includes four articles by American scholars and four articles by Brazilian scholars. I argue that the "ugly American" hermeneutics exemplified in Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller is unfortunate, even if we supplement Justice Scalia's hermeneutical fantasy with the much more careful and balanced philosophical work by Larry Solum, Keith Whittington and other scholars. Nevertheless, the pragmatic work of interpretation by lawyers and judges in the day-to-day world of legal practice shows a plain-faced integrity of which we Americans can be proud.
Ugly American Hermeneutics, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Ugly American Hermeneutics, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Nevada Law Journal
This article will appear in a Symposium on comparative legal hermeneutics that includes four articles by American scholars and four articles by Brazilian scholars. I argue that the "ugly American" hermeneutics exemplified in Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller is unfortunate, even if we supplement Justice Scalia's hermeneutical fantasy with the much more careful and balanced philosophical work by Larry Solum, Keith Whittington and other scholars. Nevertheless, the pragmatic work of interpretation by lawyers and judges in the day-to-day world of legal practice shows a plain-faced integrity of which we Americans can be proud.