Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
Say The Magic Word: A Rhetorical Analysis Of Contract Drafting Choices, Lori D. Johnson
Say The Magic Word: A Rhetorical Analysis Of Contract Drafting Choices, Lori D. Johnson
Scholarly Works
Drafters of complex contracts often face a thorny dilemma – determining whether to retain “magic words” included in form documents, especially when considering the advice of current contract style scholars advocating for the removal of all traditional contract prose. But the drafter need not remove all terms that serve as elegant shorthand for more convoluted legal concepts, particularly where the inclusion of the term advances client interests. The application of rhetorical criticism – the analysis of methods of communicating ideas – to drafters’ use of the term “time is of the essence” sheds light on the dominant motivations of drafters …