Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.