Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Jaramillo V. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020), Jose Tafoya Apr 2020

Jaramillo V. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020), Jose Tafoya

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found a plaintiff is not required to provide expert testimony to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion when the plaintiff is relying on the res ipsa loquitur statute’s prima facie case of negligence. Rather, plaintiff must only establish facts that entitle it to a rebuttable presumption of negligence under Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute. Whether a defendant can rebut the presumption through their own expert testimony or evidence is a question of fact for the jury.


Reynolds V. Tufenkjian, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 9, 2020), Brittni Tanenbaum Apr 2020

Reynolds V. Tufenkjian, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 9, 2020), Brittni Tanenbaum

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether a party who purchased a judgment debtor’s rights of action could motion the Court to substitute themselves in as the real party in interest and dismiss the appeal. The Court held that only “things in action” that are otherwise assignable may be subject to execution to satisfy a judgment. The Court concluded that tort claims for personal injury—including fraud/intentional misrepresentation and elder exploitation—are generally not assignable. The Court further concluded that tort claims for injury to property and contract-based claims, unless the claims are personal in nature, are generally assignable. Therefore, the Court granted the respondents’ …


Berberich V. Bank Of America, 136 Nev. Ad. Op (Mar. 26, 2020), Amelia Mallette Mar 2020

Berberich V. Bank Of America, 136 Nev. Ad. Op (Mar. 26, 2020), Amelia Mallette

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a quiet title action from a foreclosure sale was barred by NRS 11.080 because Berberich was in possession of the property for five years before commencing the action. The Court held that the limitations period outlined in NRS 11.080 will not run against an owner who is in undisputed possession of the land.


Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure Jan 2020

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …


Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou Jan 2020

Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A blogger claimed that his sources are protected under NRS 49.275. The court held that digital media is protected, but did not address whether a blogger is protected. The district court did not err in allowing discovery to determine whether the blogger acted with actual malice.


In Re Application Of Finley, Nevada Ct. App., No. 76715-Coa (July 25, 2019), Ben Coonan Jan 2020

In Re Application Of Finley, Nevada Ct. App., No. 76715-Coa (July 25, 2019), Ben Coonan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court found that the lower court had erroneously applied the incorrect statute in determining the requisite waiting period to file an application to seal records, and reversed and remanded with instructions for the lower court to apply the updated statute. The court found Finley’s argument – that a later court is prohibited from considering that conviction in an application to seal further records once record of a conviction has been sealed – without merit because statutory language expressly permits courts to consider sealed records in future applications.