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

Law Commons™

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

2017

Civil Procedure

Series

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Articles 1 - 14 of 14

Full-Text Articles in Law

Estate Of Adams V. Fallini, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (December 29, 2016), Krystina Viernes Dec 2017

Estate Of Adams V. Fallini, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (December 29, 2016), Krystina Viernes

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether a party may appeal a district court’s order granting an NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a final judgment for fraud upon the court. The Court held the district court’s order interlocutory and may not be appealed until a final judgment is entered.The Court held that the district court was not barred from considering the NRCP 60(b) motion and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief based on fraud upon the court.

Go to article

Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker Dec 2017

Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional tort and bad faith claims. Under comity principles, the Franchise Tax Board was entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap that would extend to Nevada businesses under NRS 41.035(1). The Court additionally recognized false light invasion of privacy as a tort cause of action distinct from other privacy torts, and adopted the Restatement’s sliding-scale approach in determining the amount of evidence necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Go to article

Mendenhall V. Tassinari, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Oct. 5, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker Oct 2017

Mendenhall V. Tassinari, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Oct. 5, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that after a final judgment, pursuant to an Offer of Judgment under NRCP 68 offer is entered, both claim preclusion and the terms of the offer apply when a party seeks to relitigate claims. This is true even if the claim arises from facts discovered during the offer’s ten-day irrevocable acceptance period.

Go to article

City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith Aug 2017

City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed an appeal to determine whether an appellant: (1) “properly sought the disclosure of public records by a writ of mandamus,” and (2) whether medical marijuana establishments (“MMEs”) business license identifying information must be disclosed pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act. The Court held that NRS 239.011 provides the specific means by which to challenge the disclosure of public records, and thus Respondent properly filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Additionally, pursuant to NRS 453A.370(5), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public and Behavior Health (“Division”) has the proper authority to adopt …

Go to article

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 27, 2017), Elise Conlin Jul 2017

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 27, 2017), Elise Conlin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-client privilege related to discovery documents. The Court also adopted the “because of” test with a “totality of the circumstances” standard to determine when a document falls under the work-product privilege.

Go to article

Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker Jul 2017

Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that parties must timely assert the one-action rule as an affirmative defense in their response pleadings. If not, it is waived. As such, the District Court erred when it granted Respondent Beavor’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the one-action rule because he failed to raise that defense in a timely manner.

Go to article

Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart Jun 2017

Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Bd. Of Review V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (June 22, 2017), Skyler Sullivan Jun 2017

Bd. Of Review V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (June 22, 2017), Skyler Sullivan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Naming all relevant parties as defendants, pursuant to NRS 612.530(1), is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. Failure to follow this statutory requirement deprives the district court of its jurisdiction to hear a petition for judicial review.

Go to article

Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang Jun 2017

Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a summary judgment is proper when the opposing party did not file a substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment and (2) a class certification is inappropriate when the plaintiff/appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating “numerosity, commonality, and typicality,” and the ability to “fairly and adequately” represent the class members when an earlier-filed grievance between the union and taxi company resolved the minimum wage back-pay dispute at issue.

Go to article

O'Neal V. Hudson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (June 1, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski Jun 2017

O'Neal V. Hudson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (June 1, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

If a party timely sends a motion for new trial directly to the presiding judge in an email, then that motion is properly filed and will toll the time available to file a notice of appeal so long as: (1) the presiding judge allows the motion to be filed with that judge; and, (2) the presiding judge accepts the motion within the required time-period.

Go to article

In Re Davis Family Heritage Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 25, 2017)., Ping Chang May 2017

In Re Davis Family Heritage Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 25, 2017)., Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings May 2017

In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) when a parent is deemed incompetent to stand a criminal trial, there is no statutory authority requiring the district court to continue a parallel parental rights termination trial so that the parent can regain competence; and (2) when a litigant fails to object to the State’s method of service in initial pleadings or during trial, the litigant waives all challenges to the service of a parental rights termination by publication.

Go to article

Trp Int’L, Inc. V. Proimtu Mmi Llc, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Apr. 6, 2017), Elise Conlin Apr 2017

Trp Int’L, Inc. V. Proimtu Mmi Llc, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Apr. 6, 2017), Elise Conlin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that an order granting a motion to reconsider and vacate the final judgment is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. There is no final judgment if that motion to vacate is granted; thus, there cannot be a special order after a final judgment.

Go to article

Saticoy Bay Llc V. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 26, 2017), Karson Bright Jan 2017

Saticoy Bay Llc V. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 26, 2017), Karson Bright

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, and thus, the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint was mandatory. However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because the district court mischaracterized NRS 116.3116(6) as a statute of limitations when it only limits the amount of actionable unpaid HOA assessments. Finally, the Court found that appellant’s subsequent action would not be barred by statute of limitations.

Go to article