Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Procedure (25)
- Labor and Employment Law (10)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (9)
- Torts (9)
- Constitutional Law (6)
-
- Family Law (5)
- Health Law and Policy (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Business Organizations Law (3)
- Construction Law (3)
- Estates and Trusts (3)
- Evidence (3)
- Privacy Law (3)
- Property Law and Real Estate (3)
- Workers' Compensation Law (3)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Medical Jurisprudence (2)
- Religion Law (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1)
- Courts (1)
- Disability Law (1)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (1)
- Gaming Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Labor and Employment (8)
- Title VII (8)
- Civil Appeal (5)
- Defamation (4)
- Civil (3)
-
- Due process (3)
- Medical malpractice (3)
- Administrative Agency (2)
- Attorney Fees (2)
- EEOC (2)
- Foreclosure (2)
- Gaming (2)
- HOA (2)
- Lien (2)
- Negligence (2)
- Summary Judgment (2)
- Torts (2)
- Trusts (2)
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (1)
- Absolute Privilege to Publish (1)
- Access to counsel (1)
- Admin (1)
- Agents (1)
- Alaska (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appellate (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Assignability of Judgment (1)
- Assumption of the Risk (1)
- Attorney-Client Privilege (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 61 - 90 of 94
Full-Text Articles in Civil Law
Mona V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Sept. 29, 2016), William Nobriga
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.
Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson
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.”
Nationstar Mortg. V. Rodriguez, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (July 28, 2016), Patrick Caddick
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.
Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich
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 …
Humboldt Gen. Hosp. V. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Jul. 28, 2016), Rob Schmidt
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.
State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell
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.
Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich
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.
Poremba V. S. Nev. Paving; And S&C Claims Servs., Inc. 132 Nev. Ad. Op. 24 (April 7, 2016), Baylie Hellman
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.
Hunter V. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2016), Brandonn Grossman
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.
Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
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.
Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley
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.
Goodwin V. Jones, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 03, 2016), Rob Schmidt
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.
Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 25, 2016), F. Shane Jackson
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 …
Corp. Bishop, Lds V. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Jan. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren
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.
Review Of Alaska Mental Health Statutes, Sara Gordon, Melissa Piasecki, Gil Kahn, Dawn Nielsen
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 …
In Re Guardianship & Estate Of Echevarria, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
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.
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that Carson City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) 8.04.050(1) is (1) unconstitutionally overbroad because it “is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words” and (2) vague because it lacked sufficient guidelines and gave the police too much discretion in its enforcement.
State, Emp’T. Sec. Div. V. Murphy, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall
State, Emp’T. Sec. Div. V. Murphy, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that employees who are terminated from employment for absence due to incarceration, and are later convicted of a crime, are not eligible for unemployment benefits. These employees are contrasted with those who are incarcerated, but remained incarcerated due to indigence, or were not convicted due to unsupported charges. The latter group may be eligible for unemployment benefits.
No Money, No Lawyer — No Children: The Right To Counsel For Indigent Defendants In Nevada Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings, Erik J. Foley
No Money, No Lawyer — No Children: The Right To Counsel For Indigent Defendants In Nevada Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings, Erik J. Foley
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Gaming Corporations Gamble With The Fcpa, Joseph Grusman
Gaming Corporations Gamble With The Fcpa, Joseph Grusman
UNLV Gaming Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Barrett V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 65, Laura Guidry
Summary Of Barrett V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 65, Laura Guidry
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined one issue: 1) whether a defendant subcontractor must provide NRS Chapter 40 prelitigation notice, which is statutorily followed by an opportunity to repair, prior to filing a fourth-party complaint against a supplier.
Title Vii At Fifty Years: A Symposium, Ann C. Mcginley
Title Vii At Fifty Years: A Symposium, Ann C. Mcginley
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Trouble With Torgerson: The Latest Effort To Summarily Adjudicate Employment Discrimination Cases, Theresa M. Beiner
The Trouble With Torgerson: The Latest Effort To Summarily Adjudicate Employment Discrimination Cases, Theresa M. Beiner
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Hiding The Statute In Plain View: University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center V. Nassar, Michael J. Zimmer
Hiding The Statute In Plain View: University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center V. Nassar, Michael J. Zimmer
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Lessons From The Dolphins/Richie Incognito Saga, Kerri Lynn Stone
Lessons From The Dolphins/Richie Incognito Saga, Kerri Lynn Stone
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
How The Nlrb's Light Still Shines On Anti-Discrimination Law Fifty Years After Title Vii, Michael Z. Green
How The Nlrb's Light Still Shines On Anti-Discrimination Law Fifty Years After Title Vii, Michael Z. Green
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Defying "Common Sense?": The Legitimacy Of Applying Title Vii To Employer Criminal Records Policies, Tammy R. Pettinato
Defying "Common Sense?": The Legitimacy Of Applying Title Vii To Employer Criminal Records Policies, Tammy R. Pettinato
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Misconstruing Notice In Eeoc Administrative Processing & Conciliation, Angela D. Morrison, Angela D. Morrison
Misconstruing Notice In Eeoc Administrative Processing & Conciliation, Angela D. Morrison, Angela D. Morrison
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Title Vii And Diversity, Kingsley R. Browne
Summary Of Jacobs V. Adelson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 44, Kylee Gloeckner
Summary Of Jacobs V. Adelson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 44, Kylee Gloeckner
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether the absolute privilege rule applies to statements made to the media.