Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Contracts (5)
- Arbitration (4)
- Agreements (2)
- Deficiency Judgment (2)
- Notice of Default (2)
-
- Ambiguous insurance policy provision (1)
- Arbitrary and Carpricious (1)
- Arbitration Clause (1)
- Attorney Fees (1)
- Breach of Contract (1)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE (1)
- CONTRACT LAW (1)
- CONTRACT LAW: ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS (1)
- CONTRACT LAW: BREACH OF CONTRACT (1)
- CONTRACT; TORT: CONVERSION; GAMING (1)
- CONTRACTS (1)
- CONTRACTS: BREACH (1)
- CONTRACTS: NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS (1)
- Certified Question (1)
- Constructive eviction (1)
- Contract (1)
- Contract Law (1)
- Contract interpretation (1)
- Contracts; contractors; mechanic’s lien (1)
- Court Proceedings (1)
- Electronic Coverage (1)
- Family Law; Divorce; Contract Law (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Forum Selection Clauses (1)
- GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 71
Full-Text Articles in Law
Elk Point Country Club Hoa V. K. H. Brown, Llc, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 18, 2022), Alexander Provan
Elk Point Country Club Hoa V. K. H. Brown, Llc, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 18, 2022), Alexander Provan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When a planned communities’ governing documents restrict real property use to residential use only, NRS 116.340(1)(a) permits a real property owner to use real property for transient commercial use so long as the governing documents of the community do not prohibit such use. Transient commercial use is the use of property, for remuneration, as transient lodging, if the term of occupancy is thirty days or less—i.e., short-term rentals. It is a reversable error to interpret bylaws and governing documents as prohibiting rentals when they use the terms “tenants” and
Sr Construction, Inc. V. Peek Brothers Construction, Inc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (June 2, 2022), Candace Mays
Sr Construction, Inc. V. Peek Brothers Construction, Inc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (June 2, 2022), Candace Mays
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court, reviewing an appeal from the district court’s denial to compel arbitration, contemplated the scope of and applicability of a master subcontractor agreement’s arbitration clause when the language did not unequivocally compel subcontractors to arbitrate disputes. The Court held that where the arbitration provision of a contract is broad, the presumption toward arbitrability prevails.
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.
Mmawc, Llc V. Zion Wood Obi Wan Trust, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (Sep. 5, 2019), John Mccormick-Huhn
Mmawc, Llc V. Zion Wood Obi Wan Trust, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (Sep. 5, 2019), John Mccormick-Huhn
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted NRS § 597.995, which required any agreement containing an arbitration provision to also provide affirmative authorization to the arbitration by the agreement’s parties.
Pardee Homes Of Nevada V. Wolfram, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (July 3, 2019), Michael Desmond
Pardee Homes Of Nevada V. Wolfram, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (July 3, 2019), Michael Desmond
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) any party seeking attorney fees as special damages must comply with NRCP 9(g), (2) the prevailing party in a two-party breach of contract suit is not entitled to attorney fees as special damages, and (3) any party seeking attorney fees pursuant to express contractual provisions is so entitled upon prevailing in the suit.
Shores V. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Aug. 2, 2018), Natice Locke
Shores V. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Aug. 2, 2018), Natice Locke
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered whether the employer demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits to uphold a noncompete agreement that prevented the employee from working anywhere in the United States, despite the employer not having established business contacts for such a wide area. Further, it considered whether the employer made the requisite prima facie showing that the noncompete agreement was reasonable in its terms and scope to warrant a likelihood of success on the merits. Because the employer was not able to make a prima facie case, the Court reversed the district court’s decision.
Cain V. Price C/W 69889/70864, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (April 12, 2018), Jeff Chronister
Cain V. Price C/W 69889/70864, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (April 12, 2018), Jeff Chronister
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that one party’s material breach of contract releases the non-breaching party’s contractual obligation to a third-party beneficiary.
U.S. Home Corp. V. The Michael Ballesteros Trust, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (April 1, 2018), Natice Locke
U.S. Home Corp. V. The Michael Ballesteros Trust, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (April 1, 2018), Natice Locke
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that where an underlying transaction involves interstate commerce, the FAA (Federal Arbitration Act) preempts state unconscionability doctrine from disfavoring arbitration.
State Of Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial District Court (Nassiri), 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (September 27, 2017), Natice Locke
State Of Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial District Court (Nassiri), 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (September 27, 2017), Natice Locke
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered a writ of mandamus challenging district court orders denying summary judgment on a landowner’s contract claims following a settlement in a condemnation action. The Court held the district court improperly ruled there were no undisputed facts when it denied the Nevada Department of Transportation’s motion for summary judgment on a landowner’s contract claims.
Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker
Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that parties must timely assert the one-action rule as an affirmative defense in their response pleadings. If not, it is waived. As such, the District Court erred when it granted Respondent Beavor’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the one-action rule because he failed to raise that defense in a timely manner.
Washoe Cty. Sch. Dist. V. White, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (June 29, 2017), Margarita Elias
Washoe Cty. Sch. Dist. V. White, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (June 29, 2017), Margarita Elias
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Kara White (“White”) was terminated from her role as elementary school principal after the school district’s decision to terminate her was affirmed in an arbitration hearing. White filed a motion to vacate the award in district court. The district court granted White’s motion, holding that (1) the arbitrator exceeded his authority, (2) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded NRS 391.3116, and (3) the award was arbitrary and capricious. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, which reversed the district court’s ruling.
Solid V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 27, 2017), Hunter Davidson
Solid V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 27, 2017), Hunter Davidson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court interpreted Nevada Supreme Court Rules (“SCR” or the “Rules”) on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings: (1) My Entertainment TV (MET) is a “news reporter” under SCR 229(1)(c) because it collects, edits, and publishes footage concerning local events for public dissemination; (2) Clark County court proceedings footage has the educational or informational purpose required by SCR 241; (3) camera presence in the court room alone does not overcome the presumption permitting electronic recording of court proceedings under SCR 230; and (4) contract provisions must be read together, and the result should comport with the SCR on electronic coverage of …
Cashman Equipment Co. V. West Edna Assocs., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sep. 29, 2016), Andrew Hart
Cashman Equipment Co. V. West Edna Assocs., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sep. 29, 2016), Andrew Hart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) NRS 108.2457(5)(e) precludes enforcement of an unconditional release from a bottom-tiered contractor to a higher-tiered contractor, when the higher-tiered contractor properly paid the middle-tiered contractor, but the middle-tiered contractor failed to pay the bottom-tiered contractor; and (2) that equitable fault analysis may not be used to reduce an award in a mechanic’s lien case.
Principal Investments V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 14, 2016), Katherine Maher
Principal Investments V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 14, 2016), Katherine Maher
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held unless the arbitration agreement commits the question to the arbitrator with “clear and unmistakable” language, a litigation-conduct waiver is presumptively for the court to decide because it is a waiver based on active litigation in court. Thus, the district court judge in this case did not err in addressing whether the moving party waived its right to arbitrate, instead of referring the question to the arbitrator.
Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey
Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the doctrine of mutual mistake is not grounds for rescission of a contract when the party bears the risk of mistake. The party bears the risk of mistake if the party is aware at the time of the formation of the contract that they only have limited knowledge of the facts to which the mistake relates, but treats that knowledge as sufficient, the court will allocate the risk of mistake to that party.
Golden Road Motor Inn, V. Islam, Et. Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Golden Road Motor Inn, V. Islam, Et. Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that non-compete agreements cannot extend further than what is reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the employer and cannot create an undue hardship on the employee. It also held that courts may not “blue line” (“blue pencil”) contracts, that is change or delete terms to make the Contract legal. The Court further held that altering player contact information, so long as the information can be restored with minimal disruption to the gaming company does not rise to the level of conversion. Finally, the Court held that a gaming company is not liable for …
In Re: Manhattan West Mechanic’S Lien Litigation, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 24, 2015), Kristian Kaskla
In Re: Manhattan West Mechanic’S Lien Litigation, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 24, 2015), Kristian Kaskla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a general subordination agreement effects a partial subordination; and (2) NRS 108.225 does not preclude parties from contracting for a partial subordination.
Mika V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sep. 24, 2015), Kory Koerperich
Mika V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sep. 24, 2015), Kory Koerperich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court denied extraordinary writ relief from the district court’s decision to compel arbitration between Petitioners and their employer based on a long-form arbitration agreement signed only by the Petitioners, and federal law favoring arbitration agreements.
Am. First Fed. Credit Union V. Soro, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Sep. 24, 2014), Katherine Maher
Am. First Fed. Credit Union V. Soro, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Sep. 24, 2014), Katherine Maher
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a contract clause in which the parties “submit themselves to the jurisdiction of” another state, without more exclusive language, is permissive and does not result in a mandatory forum selection clause.
Tallman V. Eight Judicial District Court, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 60673 (Sep. 24, 2015), Marta Kurshumova
Tallman V. Eight Judicial District Court, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 60673 (Sep. 24, 2015), Marta Kurshumova
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that an employment arbitration agreement, which contains a clause waiving the right to initiate or participate in class actions, constitutes a valid contract, even though it is not signed by the employer. The Court further determined that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to all transactions involving commerce and does not conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, which permits and requires arbitration. Finally, the Court found that a party does not automatically waive its contractual rights to arbitration by removing an action to federal court.
Land Baron Invs. V. Bonnie Springs Family Lp, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 17, 2015), Rob Schmidt
Land Baron Invs. V. Bonnie Springs Family Lp, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 17, 2015), Rob Schmidt
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This case is an appeal arising from a failed land sale contract. The Court considered three issues of first impression, holding that (1) when a party bears the risk, mutual mistake is not a basis for rescission; (2) an abuse of process claim may not be supported by a complaint to an administrative agency; (3) a nuisance claim seeking only emotional distress damages must be supported by proof of physical harm. Ultimately, The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Summary Of Excellence Cmty. Mgmt. V. Gilmore, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 25, 2015), Ashleigh Wise
Summary Of Excellence Cmty. Mgmt. V. Gilmore, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 25, 2015), Ashleigh Wise
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held the sale of a 100 percent membership interest in a limited liability company does not affect the enforcement of an employee’s employment contract containing a restrictive covenant because the sale does not create a new entity. An employer limited liability company may enforce a restrictive covenant in an employment contract without its employee’s consent of assignment.
Summary Of First Financial Bank, N.A. V. Lane, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 96, Patrick Phippen
Summary Of First Financial Bank, N.A. V. Lane, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 96, Patrick Phippen
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the limitation in the second sentence of NRS 40.451 simply means a lender cannot recover in deficiency judgment actions for future advances secured but not paid at the time of default and (2) NRS 40.451 by itself does not contemplate successors in interest.
Summary Of Mason Mcduffie Real Estate V. Villa Fiore Development, 103 Nev. Adv. Op. 83, Jessica Gandy
Summary Of Mason Mcduffie Real Estate V. Villa Fiore Development, 103 Nev. Adv. Op. 83, Jessica Gandy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a commercial tenant may not be constructively evicted without “first providing the landlord notice of and a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect”, even when the defect persist after repeated failed attempts to cure by the landlord.
Summary Of Wood V. Germann, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Ryan Becklean
Summary Of Wood V. Germann, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Ryan Becklean
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined one issue: (1) the legal effect of a loan assignment from a homeowner’s original lender to a subsequent purchaser when that assignment violates the terms of the original lender and subsequent purchaser’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). More specifically, the court decided whether a loan assignment that is executed after the closing date renders the assignment void and ineffective to transfer ownership of the homeowner’s loan.
Summary Of Century Sur. Co. V. Casino W., Inc., 130 Adv. Nev. Op. 42, Michael Paretti
Summary Of Century Sur. Co. V. Casino W., Inc., 130 Adv. Nev. Op. 42, Michael Paretti
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined whether two distinct provisions of an insurance policy regarding air pollution were subject to multiple reasonable interpretations.
Summary Of Lavi V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 38, Danielle Barraza
Summary Of Lavi V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 38, Danielle Barraza
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether waiver of the “one-action rule” of NRS 40.430 terminates the procedural requirements for bringing a deficiency judgment action within six months of foreclosure under NRS 40.455.
Summary Of Schleining V. Cap One, Inc., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 36, Laura Guidry
Summary Of Schleining V. Cap One, Inc., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 36, Laura Guidry
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined two issues: 1) whether NRS 40.453 invalidates a guarantor’s contractual waiver of the statutory right to be mailed a notice of default and 2) whether NRS 107.095 requires strict or substantial compliance by lenders giving notice of default, and if substantial compliance is sufficient, whether there was substantial compliance in this case.
Summary Of Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. V. Faehnrich, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, Jeffrey Pike
Summary Of Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. V. Faehnrich, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, Jeffrey Pike
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether Nevada public policy precludes giving effect to a choice-of-law provision in an insurance contract made by parties residing outside Nevada that would deny Nevada residents injured in Nevada recovery under NRS 485.3091.