Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (14)
- Civil Procedure (7)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE (6)
- Torts (4)
- Tolling (3)
-
- Class Action (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Family Law (2)
- Foreclosure (2)
- HOA (2)
- Judicial Review (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Lien (2)
- Medical malpractice (2)
- Statute of Limitations (2)
- Summary Judgment (2)
- Termination (2)
- 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) (1)
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (1)
- APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1)
- Absolute Immunity (1)
- Amendment (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Appealability of final judgments (1)
- Appealable judgments (1)
- Appellate (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Assignability of Judgment (1)
- Attorney lien (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 240
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez
In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the District Court of Nevada to have specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trustee, they must meet the Calder effects test to show that the defendant purposefully directed his actions towards Nevada. Mere actions towards a plaintiff living in Nevada will not amount to sufficient contacts in Nevada. Margaret must show Steven expressly aimed his actions at Nevada. Margaret failed to bring prima facie evidence of the effects in Nevada. Therefore, Nevada does not have specific personal jurisdiction over Steven.
Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James
Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When a plaintiff timely moves for an extension of the service period under NRCP 4(e)(3), the district court must consider the Scrimer factors. This includes factors that relate to the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and to any circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control that may have resulted in the failure to timely serve the defendant. The Court addressed which factors are to be applied when a district court considers a timely motion to extend the service period for a summons and complaint. The Court had previously articulated the relevant factors to determine whether a plaintiff has shown good cause for …
Torremoro V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 07, 2022), Mackenzie Sullivan
Torremoro V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 07, 2022), Mackenzie Sullivan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the close of discovery and considered whether the district court abused its discretion in modifying the scheduling order, reopening discovery, and granting the motion to substitute. Torremoro requested a writ of mandamus requesting this Court to instruct the district court to reverse its order allowing substitution of an expert witness. The Court found that NRCP 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” test, in combination with any relevant local rules, provides the standard governing when a district court may modify a scheduling order. 2 The Court also concluded that the …
Hung Vs. Berhad, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays
Hung Vs. Berhad, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants’ complaint on procedural grounds without granting leave to amend so that they could remedy any deficiencies in their pleadings thus far. The Court held that neither the appellants’ original complaint, first amended complaint, nor proposed second amended complaint, contained facts sufficient to show leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.
Cox V. Mgm Grand Hotel, Lcc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 14, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long
Cox V. Mgm Grand Hotel, Lcc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 14, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This case addressed when the district court can and should grant a remand for a new trial when a party claimed that evidentiary and instructional errors prejudiced their case. The particular issue in this case was the admittance of six surveillance videos that contradicted in-court presentation.
Reynolds V. Tufenkjian, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 9, 2020), Brittni Tanenbaum
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’ …
Jaramillo V. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020), Jose Tafoya
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.
Berberich V. Bank Of America, 136 Nev. Ad. Op (Mar. 26, 2020), Amelia Mallette
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.
Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou
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
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.
State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian
State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court had two holdings in this case. First, a final decision for purposes of judicial review must contain a detailed finding of facts and conclusions of law by an administrative agency. Second, when a petition for judicial review is filed prematurely, it does not vest jurisdiction in the district court.
Marcus A. Reif V. Aries Consultants, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Oct. 10, 2019), Joseph Adamiak
Marcus A. Reif V. Aries Consultants, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Oct. 10, 2019), Joseph Adamiak
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that, under NRS 11.258(1), a complaint is only void if it is served without a concurrent filing of attorney affidavit and export report.
Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport
Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for a state-law claim filed in federal court, stops running only while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after the state-law claim’s dismissal. Further, Nevada’s litigation malpractice rule, which does not apply to non-adversarial or transactional representation, or before the attorney files a complaint, tolls a litigation malpractice claim’s statute of limitations until the underlying litigation is resolved and damages are certain, preserving the statute of limitations under NRS 11.207(1) which requires a …
Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays
Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) Walden v. Fiore did not overrule Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, meaning that Nevada, under its long-arm statute, recognizes conspiracy-based theory personal jurisdiction and utilizes the conspiracy jurisdiction test as laid out in Gibbs v. Prime Lending and (2) Tricarichi failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either specific or conspiracy theory personal jurisdiction due to an inability to provide sufficient evidence connecting the respondents actions to Nevada.
State Dep’T Of Corr. V. Ludwick, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 2, 2019), Tayler Bingham
State Dep’T Of Corr. V. Ludwick, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 2, 2019), Tayler Bingham
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determination that a crime is so serious that termination serves the public good, even when the agency has no published regulation dictating that outcome, and (2) an administrative hearing officer committed a clear error of law in relying, in any way, upon an invalid regulation to review an agency’s determination to terminate for a first-time disciplinary action.
Rose, Llc., V. Treasure Island, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Jun. 6, 2019), Ben Coonan
Rose, Llc., V. Treasure Island, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Jun. 6, 2019), Ben Coonan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that (1) strict compliance with contract notice requirements is unnecessary if the defaulting party receives actual notice and no prejudice resulted from failure to comply strictly with the contract terms; and (2) a party is not necessary under NRCP 19 unless the other parties to the litigation cannot obtain complete relief in that party’s absence.
Boesiger V. Desert Appraisals, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (July 3, 2019), Jeff Garrett
Boesiger V. Desert Appraisals, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (July 3, 2019), Jeff Garrett
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that Appellants provided insufficient evidence to show that Respondents had a duty to Appellant or breached their duty to Appellant. The Appellants failed to provide the required expert testimony necessary for a case concerning the professional conduct of a profession whose standards and procedures are not known to the public. Additionally, because the contract between the Appellants and the Respondents did not expressly name the Appellants as third-party beneficiaries, the Appellants do not have standing to request the contract be enforced.
Saticoy Bay Llc V. Nev. Ass’N Servs., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Jul. 3, 2019), Katrina Fadda
Saticoy Bay Llc V. Nev. Ass’N Servs., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Jul. 3, 2019), Katrina Fadda
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that (1) under Nevada's HOA foreclosure redemption statute NRS 116.31166(3) a homeowner may use proceeds from the foreclosure sale to go towards redemption of the property; and (2) that sufficient compliance with the statute is enough to satisfy the statute's requirements.
Demaranville V. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.’S, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Sept. 5, 2019), Anya Lester
Demaranville V. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.’S, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Sept. 5, 2019), Anya Lester
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the last injurious exposure rule determines the liability for occupational disease which is conclusively presumed to have resulted from past employment. Additionally, the Court held that death benefits are based on the employee’s wages earned while working for the employer to which the occupational disease is causally connected.
Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray
Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
As a matter of first impression, the Court found that the 45-day service requirement for review of administrative decisions is not a jurisdictional requirement because the statute allows for extension based on good cause. However, in the present case, appellant did not show good cause for late service. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition.
Gonor V. Dale, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Esteban Hernandez
Gonor V. Dale, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Esteban Hernandez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that the 90-day period in which a deceased party’s successor or representative must seek to substitute for the deceased plaintiff begins when a party files a suggestion of death on the record, not on the actual date of death. But, because appellants failed to identify the proper party to maintain the survival action within 90 days, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit with prejudice.
In Re: Estate Of Sarge 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 105 (Dec. 27, 2018), Kaila Patrick
In Re: Estate Of Sarge 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 105 (Dec. 27, 2018), Kaila Patrick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court overruled the consolidation rule established in Malin v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and held that a final order resolving a consolidated case is immediately appealable as a final judgment, even if the other constituent cases or other cases are still pending. Accordingly, the Court held that the appeal at issue may proceed because the challenged order finally resolved one of multiple consolidated cases.
Valley Health Sys. V. Estate Of Jane Doe, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Sept. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Amanda Stafford
Valley Health Sys. V. Estate Of Jane Doe, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Sept. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Amanda Stafford
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the district court acted within its discretion in sanctioning the party for discovery violations. Further, it determined that the district court’s citation to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct causes reputational harm that amounts to a sanction and that the district court correctly found that the attorneys did in fact violate Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).
N. Nev. Homes V. Gl Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 2, 2018), Jeff Chronister
N. Nev. Homes V. Gl Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 2, 2018), Jeff Chronister
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate following bifurcated trials in which the parties settled as to damages on Northern Nevada Homes’ claims in an amount that exceeds GL Construction’s damages on its counterclaim because: 1) no statute or court rule requires the trial court to offset a damages judgment on one party’s counterclaim by the amount recovered by another party in settling its claim to determine which side is the prevailing party, and 2) the most reasonable interpretation of NRS 18.010(2)(a) and 18.020(3) precludes the use of settlement recovery for this …
Labarbera V. Wynn Las Vegas, Llc, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Casey Lee
Labarbera V. Wynn Las Vegas, Llc, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Casey Lee
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying by video conference from Italy and when it cited the incorrect legal standard to exclude evidence of appellant’s intoxication.
Fitzgerald V. Mobile Billboards, L.L.C., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Fitzgerald V. Mobile Billboards, L.L.C., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Clark Cty. Office Of The Coroner/Med. Exam'r V. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24. (April 12, 2018) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella
Clark Cty. Office Of The Coroner/Med. Exam'r V. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24. (April 12, 2018) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRCP 62(d) and NRCP 62(e), state and local government appellants are generally entitled to a stay of a money judgment pending appeal, without needing to post a supersedeas bond or other security as a matter of right.
Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow
Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined that Justice Court Rule of Civil Procedure 98 requiring appeals in small claims court to be filed within five days was jurisdictional and mandatory. The district court cannot use its discretion to expand the time to appeal.
Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.
Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy
Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.