Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
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.
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.
Double Diamond V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (July 30, 2015), Janine Lee
Double Diamond V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (July 30, 2015), Janine Lee
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 116.3105(2) permits homeowners associations to terminate contracts at any time if the declarant did not enter into the contract in good faith or if the contract was unconscionable to the units’ owners at the time of contract formation.[1] The statute requires that an association provide at least 90 days notice of termination under this provision. The 90-day notice period in NRS 116.3105(2) does not operate as a statute of limitations nor does it shift the burden to a notice recipient to file an action. Instead, NRS 11.190 is applicable, resulting in either a four-year or six-year statute of …