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

Law Commons™

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

Series

Civil Procedure

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

2016

Articles 1 - 12 of 12

Full-Text Articles in Law

Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson Sep 2016

Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that: (1) the six-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(1)(a) applies to claims for enforcement of a property distribution provision in a divorce decree; and (2) the statute of limitations period in an action on a divorce decree commences “from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given.”

Go to article

Humboldt Gen. Hosp. V. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Jul. 28, 2016), Rob Schmidt Jul 2016

Humboldt Gen. Hosp. V. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Jul. 28, 2016), Rob Schmidt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that allegations raising the scope of informed consent rather than the absence of consent to a medical procedure, even when pleaded as a battery action, constitute medical malpractice claims, and are subject to the NRS 41A.071 requirement for a medical expert affidavit.

Go to article

Badger V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., F. Shane Jackson May 2016

Badger V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., F. Shane Jackson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. Petitioner Darrin D. Badger (“Petitioner”) sought summary judgment in a breach of guaranty action against him and dismissal of a complaint of a deficiency judgment against him in connection with a foreclosure. After the court denied Petitioner’s motions, he filed the instant petition. The Court granted the petition, holding that a party may not use the relation back provision of NRCP 15(c) to circumvent the requirement in NRS 40.455(1) that an application for a …

Go to article

Mcclendon V. Collins, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (April 21, 2016), Colton Loretz Apr 2016

Mcclendon V. Collins, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (April 21, 2016), Colton Loretz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue here is whether a witness originally designated as a testifying expert who is then later de-designated may be deposed or called to testify at trial by an opposing party. The Court held that after an expert report has been disclosed, a testifying expert witness cannot regain the confidentiality protections of NRCP 26(b)(4)(B) by being de-designated as a non-testifying expert. The Court reasoned that after an expert witness loses protection under the statute that it is at the discretion of the district court as to whether the expert may be deposed or called to testify at trial by an …

Go to article

Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich Apr 2016

Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that (1) a district court may consider supplements to a party’s timely filed exceptions to a water rights determination; and (2) the district court’s determination of water rights was supported by substantial evidence.

Go to article

Hunter V. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2016), Brandonn Grossman Apr 2016

Hunter V. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2016), Brandonn Grossman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Court of Appeals considered a consolidated appeal from a final district court order dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice for a want of prosecution and a post judgment order awarding attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeals determined the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, reversed the district court’s dismissal, vacated its award of fees and costs, and remanded.

Go to article

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire Mar 2016

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.

Go to article

Hairr V. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016), Douglas H. Smith Mar 2016

Hairr V. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district court’s discretion. If granted, this writ would have compelled the district court to grant the petitioners’ application to intervene under Rule 24 of the Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure as defendants in a constitutional challenge to a program that awards grants to children who are educated by entities other than public schools. The State is presumed to adequately represent the interests of those who support the bill. Since they did not demonstrate a conflict of interest with the State’s position or present an argument …

Go to article

Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley Mar 2016

Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determine that the decision of the State Contractors’ Board closing homeowners’ complaint and directing contractor to make repairs to residence was not a final decision resolving a contested case, as required to preclude a homeowner from relitigating whether contractor was required to have an electrical license. The Court also determine that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor needed an electrical license and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor completed its contractual obligations to homeowner.

Go to article

Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 25, 2016), F. Shane Jackson Feb 2016

Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 25, 2016), F. Shane Jackson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss. Petitioner Nevada Department of Transportation (“NDOT”) sought dismissal of a professional negligence claim filed against it on grounds that the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney affidavit and expert report as required by NRS 11.258, and when the court denied NDOT’s motion, it filed the instant petition. The Court denied the petition, holding that NDOT is not a design professional under NRS 11.2565(1)(a), and therefore the requirements of NRS 11.258 are inapplicable to NDOT since the action would not …

Go to article

Corp. Bishop, Lds V. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Jan. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren Jan 2016

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.

Go to article

Shadow Wood Homeowners Association, Inc.; And Gogo Way Trust V. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (January 28, 2016), Andrea Orwoll Jan 2016

Shadow Wood Homeowners Association, Inc.; And Gogo Way Trust V. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (January 28, 2016), Andrea Orwoll

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment to a bank that had lost a condominium in an HOA lien foreclosure sale. The Court held that despite statutory provisions, which seem prohibit overturning an HOA lien foreclosure sale if required recitals are present in the HOA’s trustee deed, there remains a common law power to overturn such foreclosure sales. The Court reaffirmed the principle that, where appropriate, Nevada courts may “grant equitable relief from a defective HOA lien foreclosure sale”—but only when there has been both 1) an inadequate price paid, and 2) fraud or …

Go to article