Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (79)
- Civil Law (21)
- Constitutional Law (7)
- Torts (7)
- Administrative Law (6)
-
- Family Law (6)
- Contracts (5)
- Legal Remedies (5)
- Evidence (4)
- Property Law and Real Estate (4)
- Construction Law (3)
- Criminal Law (3)
- Criminal Procedure (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Juvenile Law (3)
- Water Law (3)
- Courts (2)
- Judges (2)
- Legal Profession (2)
- Medical Jurisprudence (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Workers' Compensation Law (2)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Education Law (1)
- Estates and Trusts (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (15)
- Civil Procedure (8)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE (6)
- Torts (4)
- Discovery (3)
-
- Tolling (3)
- Arbitration (2)
- Class Action (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Defamation (2)
- Family Law (2)
- Foreclosure (2)
- HOA (2)
- Judicial Review (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Lien (2)
- Medical malpractice (2)
- Statute of Limitations (2)
- Summary Judgment (2)
- Termination (2)
- 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) (1)
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (1)
- APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1)
- Absolute Immunity (1)
- Amendment (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Appealability of final judgments (1)
- Appealable judgments (1)
- Appellate (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 258
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Davis V. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Aug. 27, 2026), Tristen Fleig
Davis V. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Aug. 27, 2026), Tristen Fleig
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In Davis v. Dist. Ct., the Supreme Court upheld the court's authority to issue orders and impose sanctions during discovery, after Petitioner claimed NAC 641.234(3) limited the court's authority to order disclosure of psychologist data.
8933 Square Knot Trust, A Nevada Trust, Appellant V. The Bank Of New York Mellon, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Aug. 20, 2026), William Fischer
8933 Square Knot Trust, A Nevada Trust, Appellant V. The Bank Of New York Mellon, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Aug. 20, 2026), William Fischer
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRCP 12(g)(2), additional motions for dismissal may not be filed unless for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or the arguments were preserved at initial filing. Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined at the onset of a proceeding.
Lytle Trust Et Al V. Gerry R. Zobrist & Jolin G. Zobrist Family Trust Et Al, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 2, 2026), William Mcadorey
Lytle Trust Et Al V. Gerry R. Zobrist & Jolin G. Zobrist Family Trust Et Al, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 2, 2026), William Mcadorey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRS 22.100(3), attorney fee awards under the lodestar method are generally calculated using the billed rate the prevailing party is actually charged, absent distinct circumstances.
Zhang V. Zhang, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 18, 2026), Nathan Mackay
Zhang V. Zhang, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 18, 2026), Nathan Mackay
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Even when a party has violated their disclosure requirements, a district court must analyze the Young factors before issuing a discovery sanction that effectively terminates the case with prejudice.
Powers V. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 14, 2026), Luis Dorantes
Powers V. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 14, 2026), Luis Dorantes
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 629.620 is unconstitutional and of no effect to the extent that it conflicts with NRCP 35 in governing court-ordered mental and physical examinations during civil discovery.
Rosenbrook V. Lloyd, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (May 14, 2026), David Elder
Rosenbrook V. Lloyd, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (May 14, 2026), David Elder
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Motions to dismiss in defamation cases should not be granted in full when some communications are protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and others are not.
Lennar Communities Nevada, Llc, And Greystone Nevada, Llc V. Pamela Whalen, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 16, 2026), Christianne White
Lennar Communities Nevada, Llc, And Greystone Nevada, Llc V. Pamela Whalen, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 16, 2026), Christianne White
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Courts should employ a totality of the circumstances test when determining if a party acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate.
Vegas Aqua, Llc Vs. Jupitor Corp., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 05, 2026), Miranda Romero
Vegas Aqua, Llc Vs. Jupitor Corp., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 05, 2026), Miranda Romero
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The plain language of Nevada Short Trial Rules (NSTR) Rule 3(d) requires a district court judge to adjudicate objections to proposed judgments rather than a short trial judge, and public policy requires adjudication of any proposed NRCP 59 motions.
Our Nev. Judges, Inc. V. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Feb. 26, 2026), Michael Martinelli
Our Nev. Judges, Inc. V. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Feb. 26, 2026), Michael Martinelli
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A Writ of Mandamus cannot join claims from separate and distinct cases except in rare circumstances.
City Of Reno V. Dist. Ct. (Conrad) (Civil) [State Of Nevada], 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Feb. 26, 2026), Nathan Mackay
City Of Reno V. Dist. Ct. (Conrad) (Civil) [State Of Nevada], 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Feb. 26, 2026), Nathan Mackay
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Before issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, a district court must address why regular inter partes procedure is inadequate. A district court that does not consider whether ex parte practice is appropriate abuses its discretion in issuing the writ.
Burns (Gregory) V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (Doe) (Civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Jan. 29, 2026), Charnel Gibson
Burns (Gregory) V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (Doe) (Civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Jan. 29, 2026), Charnel Gibson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court adopted a balancing test for pseudonymous civil cases. Because the sexual-assault plaintiff’s privacy outweighed any prejudice and the public interest, the Court denied mandamus relief.
El Cortez Reno Holdings, Llc V. Pfpco.’S Noble Pie Parlor, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 23, 2025), Anastasia Vinson
El Cortez Reno Holdings, Llc V. Pfpco.’S Noble Pie Parlor, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 23, 2025), Anastasia Vinson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
"Professional courtesy" cannot be relied on to excuse procedural failures, as unopposed motions may be treated as concessions under DCR 13(3).
State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance V. Chur; Chur V. State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 23, 2025), Christianne White
State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance V. Chur; Chur V. State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 23, 2025), Christianne White
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined a plaintiff may amend a complaint in response to a clarification of the pleading standard.
Franceschi V. Lg Chem, Ltd., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 18, 2025), Eden Tesfay
Franceschi V. Lg Chem, Ltd., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 18, 2025), Eden Tesfay
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When there is a disconnect between a defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the harm alleged by the plaintiff, specific jurisdiction may not lie with the forum court.
Bagelmania Holdings, Llc V. Rdh Interests, Inc. C/W 87901, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 04, 2025), Miranda Romero
Bagelmania Holdings, Llc V. Rdh Interests, Inc. C/W 87901, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 04, 2025), Miranda Romero
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Affidavit-of-merit and expert report requirements under NRS § 11.258 are satisfied under a single set of submissions where the complainants (1) file a joint complaint, (2) assert identical claims, and (3) represented by the same attorney.
State Of Nevada V. Degraffenreid, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 13, 2025), William Mcadorey
State Of Nevada V. Degraffenreid, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 13, 2025), William Mcadorey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Tiktok, Inc. V. Dist. Ct. [State Of Nevada], 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Nov. 06, 2025) (En Banc), Erika Loveland
Tiktok, Inc. V. Dist. Ct. [State Of Nevada], 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Nov. 06, 2025) (En Banc), Erika Loveland
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Online platforms establish specific jurisdiction when they collect and sell Nevada users' data. The CDA § 230 and 1st Amendment do not bar claims for design flaws or safety misrepresentations at the pleading stage.
Virgin Valley Water Dist. Vs. Paradise Canyon, Llc, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 24, 2025), Cassandra White
Virgin Valley Water Dist. Vs. Paradise Canyon, Llc, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 24, 2025), Cassandra White
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A GOVERNMENT AGENT IS CONSIDERED A PRIVATE PARTY IN CONTRACT DISPUTES, A JUDGE DETERMINES QUESTIONS OF LAW, THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING DOES NOT APPLY TO ACTIONS THAT COMPLY WITH A CONTRACT, ONLY A PERMIT HOLDER IS REQUIRED TO SHOW BENEFICAL USE OF PUBLIC WATER, UNAMBIGOUS CONTRACT PROVISIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, A JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THEIR OWN FACTS, ATTORNEY COMMENTS SHOULD NOT BE IRRELEVANT AND INFLAMMATORY, AND TIME LIMITS CANNOT BE ARBITRARILY ENFORCED.
In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez
In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the District Court of Nevada to have specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trustee, they must meet the Calder effects test to show that the defendant purposefully directed his actions towards Nevada. Mere actions towards a plaintiff living in Nevada will not amount to sufficient contacts in Nevada. Margaret must show Steven expressly aimed his actions at Nevada. Margaret failed to bring prima facie evidence of the effects in Nevada. Therefore, Nevada does not have specific personal jurisdiction over Steven.
Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James
Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When a plaintiff timely moves for an extension of the service period under NRCP 4(e)(3), the district court must consider the Scrimer factors. This includes factors that relate to the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and to any circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control that may have resulted in the failure to timely serve the defendant. The Court addressed which factors are to be applied when a district court considers a timely motion to extend the service period for a summons and complaint. The Court had previously articulated the relevant factors to determine whether a plaintiff has shown good cause for …
Torremoro V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 07, 2022), Mackenzie Sullivan
Torremoro V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 07, 2022), Mackenzie Sullivan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the close of discovery and considered whether the district court abused its discretion in modifying the scheduling order, reopening discovery, and granting the motion to substitute. Torremoro requested a writ of mandamus requesting this Court to instruct the district court to reverse its order allowing substitution of an expert witness. The Court found that NRCP 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” test, in combination with any relevant local rules, provides the standard governing when a district court may modify a scheduling order. 2 The Court also concluded that the …
Hung Vs. Berhad, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays
Hung Vs. Berhad, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants’ complaint on procedural grounds without granting leave to amend so that they could remedy any deficiencies in their pleadings thus far. The Court held that neither the appellants’ original complaint, first amended complaint, nor proposed second amended complaint, contained facts sufficient to show leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.
Cox V. Mgm Grand Hotel, Lcc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 14, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long
Cox V. Mgm Grand Hotel, Lcc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 14, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This case addressed when the district court can and should grant a remand for a new trial when a party claimed that evidentiary and instructional errors prejudiced their case. The particular issue in this case was the admittance of six surveillance videos that contradicted in-court presentation.
Reynolds V. Tufenkjian, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 9, 2020), Brittni Tanenbaum
Reynolds V. Tufenkjian, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 9, 2020), Brittni Tanenbaum
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered whether a party who purchased a judgment debtor’s rights of action could motion the Court to substitute themselves in as the real party in interest and dismiss the appeal. The Court held that only “things in action” that are otherwise assignable may be subject to execution to satisfy a judgment. The Court concluded that tort claims for personal injury—including fraud/intentional misrepresentation and elder exploitation—are generally not assignable. The Court further concluded that tort claims for injury to property and contract-based claims, unless the claims are personal in nature, are generally assignable. Therefore, the Court granted the respondents’ …
Jaramillo V. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020), Jose Tafoya
Jaramillo V. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020), Jose Tafoya
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found a plaintiff is not required to provide expert testimony to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion when the plaintiff is relying on the res ipsa loquitur statute’s prima facie case of negligence. Rather, plaintiff must only establish facts that entitle it to a rebuttable presumption of negligence under Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute. Whether a defendant can rebut the presumption through their own expert testimony or evidence is a question of fact for the jury.
Berberich V. Bank Of America, 136 Nev. Ad. Op (Mar. 26, 2020), Amelia Mallette
Berberich V. Bank Of America, 136 Nev. Ad. Op (Mar. 26, 2020), Amelia Mallette
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a quiet title action from a foreclosure sale was barred by NRS 11.080 because Berberich was in possession of the property for five years before commencing the action. The Court held that the limitations period outlined in NRS 11.080 will not run against an owner who is in undisputed possession of the land.
Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou
Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A blogger claimed that his sources are protected under NRS 49.275. The court held that digital media is protected, but did not address whether a blogger is protected. The district court did not err in allowing discovery to determine whether the blogger acted with actual malice.
In Re Application Of Finley, Nevada Ct. App., No. 76715-Coa (July 25, 2019), Ben Coonan
In Re Application Of Finley, Nevada Ct. App., No. 76715-Coa (July 25, 2019), Ben Coonan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court found that the lower court had erroneously applied the incorrect statute in determining the requisite waiting period to file an application to seal records, and reversed and remanded with instructions for the lower court to apply the updated statute. The court found Finley’s argument – that a later court is prohibited from considering that conviction in an application to seal further records once record of a conviction has been sealed – without merit because statutory language expressly permits courts to consider sealed records in future applications.
State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian
State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court had two holdings in this case. First, a final decision for purposes of judicial review must contain a detailed finding of facts and conclusions of law by an administrative agency. Second, when a petition for judicial review is filed prematurely, it does not vest jurisdiction in the district court.
Marcus A. Reif V. Aries Consultants, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Oct. 10, 2019), Joseph Adamiak
Marcus A. Reif V. Aries Consultants, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Oct. 10, 2019), Joseph Adamiak
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that, under NRS 11.258(1), a complaint is only void if it is served without a concurrent filing of attorney affidavit and export report.