Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Summary Of State V. Beaudion, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48 (Jul. 2, 2015), Michael S. Valiente
Summary Of State V. Beaudion, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48 (Jul. 2, 2015), Michael S. Valiente
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding “a closed hearing on the matter,” the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice. NRS 172.241(3) specifies that “[t]he district attorney may apply to the court for a determination that adequate cause exists to withhold notice, if the district attorney.... [d]etermines” that the target poses a flight risk, cannot be located or, as relevant here, “that the notice may endanger the life or property of other persons.” Accordingly, NRS 172.241’s procedure for withholding notice is met if …
Summary Of Provincial Gov’T Of Marinduque V. Placer Dome, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (June 11, 2015), Stacy Newman
Summary Of Provincial Gov’T Of Marinduque V. Placer Dome, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (June 11, 2015), Stacy Newman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the complaint for forum non conveniens. The Court found the lower court properly gave less deference to the respondent’s choice of a Nevada forum and did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case because the case lacked any bona fide connection to this state, adequate alternative fora existed, and the burdens of litigating in Nevada outweighed any convenience to the respondent. Furthermore, the Court held the district court imposed appropriate conditions on dismissal to ensure the existence of an adequate alternative forum for this litigation.
Summary Of Weddell V. Sharp, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (May 28, 2015), Ashleigh Wise
Summary Of Weddell V. Sharp, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (May 28, 2015), Ashleigh Wise
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that a defendant may raise a defense of claim preclusion against a plaintiff’s complaint even when that defendant was not a party or privy with a defendant in an earlier action brought by the plaintiff. The Court modified the privity requirement established in Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 194 P.3d 709 (2008) to incorporate nonmutual claim preclusion.