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

Civil Procedure Commons™

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

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Articles 31 - 60 of 258

Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure

Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport Sep 2019

Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for a state-law claim filed in federal court, stops running only while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after the state-law claim’s dismissal. Further, Nevada’s litigation malpractice rule, which does not apply to non-adversarial or transactional representation, or before the attorney files a complaint, tolls a litigation malpractice claim’s statute of limitations until the underlying litigation is resolved and damages are certain, preserving the statute of limitations under NRS 11.207(1) which requires a …

Go to article

Boesiger V. Desert Appraisals, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (July 3, 2019), Jeff Garrett Sep 2019

Boesiger V. Desert Appraisals, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (July 3, 2019), Jeff Garrett

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that Appellants provided insufficient evidence to show that Respondents had a duty to Appellant or breached their duty to Appellant. The Appellants failed to provide the required expert testimony necessary for a case concerning the professional conduct of a profession whose standards and procedures are not known to the public. Additionally, because the contract between the Appellants and the Respondents did not expressly name the Appellants as third-party beneficiaries, the Appellants do not have standing to request the contract be enforced.

Go to article

Saticoy Bay Llc V. Nev. Ass’N Servs., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Jul. 3, 2019), Katrina Fadda Sep 2019

Saticoy Bay Llc V. Nev. Ass’N Servs., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Jul. 3, 2019), Katrina Fadda

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that (1) under Nevada's HOA foreclosure redemption statute NRS 116.31166(3) a homeowner may use proceeds from the foreclosure sale to go towards redemption of the property; and (2) that sufficient compliance with the statute is enough to satisfy the statute's requirements.

Go to article

Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays Sep 2019

Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Walden v. Fiore did not overrule Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, meaning that Nevada, under its long-arm statute, recognizes conspiracy-based theory personal jurisdiction and utilizes the conspiracy jurisdiction test as laid out in Gibbs v. Prime Lending and (2) Tricarichi failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either specific or conspiracy theory personal jurisdiction due to an inability to provide sufficient evidence connecting the respondents actions to Nevada.

Go to article

State Dep’T Of Corr. V. Ludwick, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 2, 2019), Tayler Bingham Sep 2019

State Dep’T Of Corr. V. Ludwick, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 2, 2019), Tayler Bingham

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determination that a crime is so serious that termination serves the public good, even when the agency has no published regulation dictating that outcome, and (2) an administrative hearing officer committed a clear error of law in relying, in any way, upon an invalid regulation to review an agency’s determination to terminate for a first-time disciplinary action.

Go to article

Rose, Llc., V. Treasure Island, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Jun. 6, 2019), Ben Coonan Sep 2019

Rose, Llc., V. Treasure Island, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Jun. 6, 2019), Ben Coonan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that (1) strict compliance with contract notice requirements is unnecessary if the defaulting party receives actual notice and no prejudice resulted from failure to comply strictly with the contract terms; and (2) a party is not necessary under NRCP 19 unless the other parties to the litigation cannot obtain complete relief in that party’s absence.

Go to article

Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray Sep 2019

Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

As a matter of first impression, the Court found that the 45-day service requirement for review of administrative decisions is not a jurisdictional requirement because the statute allows for extension based on good cause. However, in the present case, appellant did not show good cause for late service. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition.

Go to article

Demaranville V. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.’S, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Sept. 5, 2019), Anya Lester Sep 2019

Demaranville V. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.’S, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Sept. 5, 2019), Anya Lester

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the last injurious exposure rule determines the liability for occupational disease which is conclusively presumed to have resulted from past employment. Additionally, the Court held that death benefits are based on the employee’s wages earned while working for the employer to which the occupational disease is causally connected.

Go to article

Gonor V. Dale, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Esteban Hernandez Dec 2018

Gonor V. Dale, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Esteban Hernandez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the 90-day period in which a deceased party’s successor or representative must seek to substitute for the deceased plaintiff begins when a party files a suggestion of death on the record, not on the actual date of death. But, because appellants failed to identify the proper party to maintain the survival action within 90 days, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit with prejudice.

Go to article

In Re: Estate Of Sarge 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 105 (Dec. 27, 2018), Kaila Patrick Dec 2018

In Re: Estate Of Sarge 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 105 (Dec. 27, 2018), Kaila Patrick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court overruled the consolidation rule established in Malin v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and held that a final order resolving a consolidated case is immediately appealable as a final judgment, even if the other constituent cases or other cases are still pending. Accordingly, the Court held that the appeal at issue may proceed because the challenged order finally resolved one of multiple consolidated cases.

Go to article

Valley Health Sys. V. Estate Of Jane Doe, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Sept. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Amanda Stafford Sep 2018

Valley Health Sys. V. Estate Of Jane Doe, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Sept. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Amanda Stafford

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court acted within its discretion in sanctioning the party for discovery violations. Further, it determined that the district court’s citation to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct causes reputational harm that amounts to a sanction and that the district court correctly found that the attorneys did in fact violate Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).

Go to article

N. Nev. Homes V. Gl Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 2, 2018), Jeff Chronister Aug 2018

N. Nev. Homes V. Gl Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 2, 2018), Jeff Chronister

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate following bifurcated trials in which the parties settled as to damages on Northern Nevada Homes’ claims in an amount that exceeds GL Construction’s damages on its counterclaim because: 1) no statute or court rule requires the trial court to offset a damages judgment on one party’s counterclaim by the amount recovered by another party in settling its claim to determine which side is the prevailing party, and 2) the most reasonable interpretation of NRS 18.010(2)(a) and 18.020(3) precludes the use of settlement recovery for this …

Go to article

Labarbera V. Wynn Las Vegas, Llc, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Casey Lee Jul 2018

Labarbera V. Wynn Las Vegas, Llc, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying by video conference from Italy and when it cited the incorrect legal standard to exclude evidence of appellant’s intoxication.

Go to article

Fitzgerald V. Mobile Billboards, L.L.C., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018), Shaneka J. Malloyd May 2018

Fitzgerald V. Mobile Billboards, L.L.C., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018), Shaneka J. Malloyd

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Clark Cty. Office Of The Coroner/Med. Exam'r V. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24. (April 12, 2018) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella Apr 2018

Clark Cty. Office Of The Coroner/Med. Exam'r V. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24. (April 12, 2018) (En Banc), Tamara Cannella

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRCP 62(d) and NRCP 62(e), state and local government appellants are generally entitled to a stay of a money judgment pending appeal, without needing to post a supersedeas bond or other security as a matter of right.

Go to article

Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow Mar 2018

Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that Justice Court Rule of Civil Procedure 98 requiring appeals in small claims court to be filed within five days was jurisdictional and mandatory. The district court cannot use its discretion to expand the time to appeal.

Go to article

Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd Feb 2018

Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.

Go to article

Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy Feb 2018

Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.

Go to article

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

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

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

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

First Prev Next Last