Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Helfstein V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 91 (Dec. 3, 2015), Heather Caliguire
Helfstein V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 91 (Dec. 3, 2015), Heather Caliguire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court determined that the six-month deadline to set aside a voluntary dismissal or settlement agreement found within NRCP 60(b) could not be extended, despite an allegation of fraud.
D.R. Horton, Inc. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 86 (October 29, 2015), Brandonn Grossman
D.R. Horton, Inc. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 86 (October 29, 2015), Brandonn Grossman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal of a district court order granting Respondent HOA’s ex parte motion for a stay and enlargement of time for service pursuant to NRS 40.647(2)(b). Ruling on Petitioner’s two writ petitions, the Court held the district court’s grant of a stay was not in error and the NRCP 41(e) five-year limitation period was tolled under the Boren exception to NRCP 41(e). Accordingly, the Court denied both writ petitions.
Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell
Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court considered whether NRCP 4(i)’s 120 day requirement for service of a summons applied to cases filed under NRS § 432B, for protection of children from neglect and abuse. The court held that the 120 day requirement does not apply to cases filed under 432B and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the juvenile court to dismiss an abuse-and-neglect petition on that premise.
Sanders V. Sears-Page, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 50, Scott Lundy
Sanders V. Sears-Page, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 50, Scott Lundy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the district court erred in deciding not to strike an empaneled juror whose background implied bias, but who promised he could remain impartial. Moreover, the Court held the district court erred in allowing challenges for cause while the juror was present, and by allowing newly discovered evidence to be entered into evidence on the final day of trial.
Summary Of Nutton V. Sunset Station, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (June 11, 2015), Joseph Meissner
Summary Of Nutton V. Sunset Station, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (June 11, 2015), Joseph Meissner
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined the proper relationship between NRCP 15(a) and NRCP 16(b), and explored whether a proposed amendment under NRCP 15(a) can be deemed “futile” because it is unsupported by, or contradicts, factual evidence produced during discovery.