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

Law Commons™

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

Series

2016

PDF

University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law

Civil Law

Articles 1 - 16 of 16

Full-Text Articles in Law

Mona V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Sept. 29, 2016), William Nobriga Sep 2016

Mona V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Sept. 29, 2016), William Nobriga

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that an individual’s personal assets are not subject to discovery or execution merely because the individual also serves as the managing agent of a judgment debtor in a representative capacity.

Go to article

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

Nationstar Mortg. V. Rodriguez, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (July 28, 2016), Patrick Caddick Jul 2016

Nationstar Mortg. V. Rodriguez, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (July 28, 2016), Patrick Caddick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The subsequent discovery of fraud does not provide good cause for overcoming a default of the 30-day window in which to file a petition for judicial review of foreclosure mediation.

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

Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich Jul 2016

Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury verdict, and post-judgment orders awarding costs and denying a new trial in a personal injury action. While the Court addressed numerous issues, the following three questions comprised the bulk of the consolidated appeals: (1) whether an attorney may ask prospective jurors questions concerning a specific verdict amount to determine potential bias or prejudice; (2) whether repeatedly asking questions about that specific amount results in jury indoctrination warranting a mistrial; and (3) when a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing jurors for cause under Jitnan …

Go to article

State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell Apr 2016

State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 432B.6075 governs emergency admission of children with emotional disturbances to facilities for their protection, and requires a petition for continuance of admission after an emergency admission within five days of the involuntary placement.[1] Based on N.R.C.P. 6(a), which governs the computing of time for judicial purposes, the Court held that the five day limitation on filing a petition was based on judicial, not calendar, days. The Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the State’s NRS 432B petition.

Go to article

Poremba V. S. Nev. Paving; And S&C Claims Servs., Inc. 132 Nev. Ad. Op. 24 (April 7, 2016), Baylie Hellman Apr 2016

Poremba V. S. Nev. Paving; And S&C Claims Servs., Inc. 132 Nev. Ad. Op. 24 (April 7, 2016), Baylie Hellman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order. The Court clarified that medical treatment is not the only expense on which a workers’ compensation claimant is permitted to exhaust his or her settlement funds. Reversed and remanded with instructions.

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

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

Goodwin V. Jones, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 03, 2016), Rob Schmidt Mar 2016

Goodwin V. Jones, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 03, 2016), Rob Schmidt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals held that because the employee did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate she made a reasonable, good-faith attempt to maintain her certification, the employee’s failure to maintain certification required by her employer constituted misconduct within the meaning of NRS 612.385.

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

In Re Guardianship & Estate Of Echevarria, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 30, 2016), Paul George Jan 2016

In Re Guardianship & Estate Of Echevarria, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 30, 2016), Paul George

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Distribution of estate funds under NRS Chapter 159 or a court’s distribution order requires a district court finding identifying the source of the funds. A valid stipulation requires mutual assent either through the presence of all interested parties or a signed writing showing the assent of the party against whom the stipulation is offered.

Go to article

Review Of Alaska Mental Health Statutes, Sara Gordon, Melissa Piasecki, Gil Kahn, Dawn Nielsen Jan 2016

Review Of Alaska Mental Health Statutes, Sara Gordon, Melissa Piasecki, Gil Kahn, Dawn Nielsen

Scholarly Works

This report identifies key statutory provisions that we recommend be amended, a description of our findings based on interviews with stakeholders, legislative history of the Alaska statutes, reviews of national best practices and, where applicable, information about emerging areas in national mental health law for Alaska to consider in creating new law. Our recommendations are based in large part on significant advances in law and medicine in the understanding and treatment of mental illness that have occurred in the years since Alaska last made significant and substantive reforms to its criminal and civil mental health statutes. It is important to …

Go to article