Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Torts (10)
- Defamation (2)
- False Light (2)
- Liability (2)
- Medical Malpractice (2)
-
- Professional Negligence (2)
- ACCESSORY LIABILITY (1)
- Absolute Immunity (1)
- Accident (1)
- Administrative agency appeal (1)
- Ambulance (1)
- Amendment (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Assignability of Judgment (1)
- Assumption of the Risk (1)
- Attorneys fees (1)
- CIVIL APPEAL: NEGLIGENCE (1)
- CIVIL APPEAL: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (1)
- CIVIL LAW: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (1)
- COMMON LAW THIRD-PARTY RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (1)
- CONTRACT; TORT: CONVERSION; GAMING (1)
- Civil Appeal (1)
- Civil Conspiracy (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Comity (1)
- Common Carrier (1)
- Comparative Fault (1)
- Concert of Action (1)
- Debtor's Rights of Action (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 91
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Rbr Management, Llc V. Eighth Judicial District Court [State Of Nevada], 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 44 (June 18, 2026), Erika Loveland
Rbr Management, Llc V. Eighth Judicial District Court [State Of Nevada], 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 44 (June 18, 2026), Erika Loveland
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Emergency medical service providers and ambulances are not "provider[s] of health care" under NRS 41A.017, so claims against them are not professional negligence claims and require no expert affidavit.
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.
Carter (Tyler) V. State Of Nevada, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (May. 14, 2026), Natalie D'Ambrosio
Carter (Tyler) V. State Of Nevada, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (May. 14, 2026), Natalie D'Ambrosio
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Carter v. State of Nevada holds that drivers involved in injury crashes must stop, provide identification, and render reasonable assistance, but are not required to remain at the scene until law enforcement authorizes departure.
Moore Vs. Primadonna Co., Llc, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 6. (Jan. 29, 2026), Collin Faught
Moore Vs. Primadonna Co., Llc, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 6. (Jan. 29, 2026), Collin Faught
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
THE COURT HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF INJURED AT A SELF-SERVICE BUSINESS NEED NOT SHOW THE TASK WAS TRADITIONALLY PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEES TO INVOKE MODE-OF-OPERATION LIABILITY.
Bernstein V. Morris, 114 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Dec. 23, 2025), Vanessa Arias
Bernstein V. Morris, 114 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Dec. 23, 2025), Vanessa Arias
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Third-party beneficiaries are allowed to sue settlor’s attorney for legal malpractice if they can prove an injury occurred and that the attorney's actions were the cause.
Hernandez Vs. The Home Depot, Inc. (Nrap 5), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (May 01, 2025), Julia Daileda
Hernandez Vs. The Home Depot, Inc. (Nrap 5), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (May 01, 2025), Julia Daileda
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Nevada fails to impose strict liability for a defective or dangerous product on a trademark licensor that played no role in the product’s design or manufacture.
Iliescu V. The Regional Transportation Commission Of Washoe County, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nov. 17, 2022), Brittany Lyons
Iliescu V. The Regional Transportation Commission Of Washoe County, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nov. 17, 2022), Brittany Lyons
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Gibbons, the Court affirmed in part and remanded the district court’s rulings for claims made by the Petitioners. First, the Court held that only tenants could commit waste on the property they are tenants of. Second, injunctive relief may not be a separate cause of action. Third, the Court held that plaintiffs pursuing a breach-of-cause contract claim must show a causal relationship between a breach and damages. Fourth, the Court found that nominal damages may be awarded where other forms of damages could not be found and that nominal damages can be awarded …
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’ …
Abrams V. Sanson, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Mar. 5, 2020), Anya Lester
Abrams V. Sanson, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Mar. 5, 2020), Anya Lester
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that statements sent to an email listserv criticizing an attorney’s courtroom conduct were good faith communications regarding a matter of public concern and were protected under the Nevada anti-SLAPP statutes. However, the Court held that Abrams did not show a probability of prevailing on her claims with prima facie evidence as her claims did not exhibit minimal merit.
Rosen V. Tarkanian, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (December 12, 2019), Andrew Brown
Rosen V. Tarkanian, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (December 12, 2019), Andrew Brown
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This issue was whether several of Jacky Rosen’s statements about Danny Tarkanian made during her political campaign constituted defamation. The Court determined that Rosen’s political statements were made in good faith and, therefore, the case was reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to grant the special motion to dismiss.
First Transit V. Chernikoff, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Aug. 1, 2019), Michael Holthus
First Transit V. Chernikoff, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Aug. 1, 2019), Michael Holthus
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court clarified that (1) the heightened duty of care by common carriers only applies to transportation-related risks, and (2) when a common carrier is aware of a passenger’s disability, reasonable care includes providing safe transport that the circumstances reasonably require based on the disability.
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. V. Gerrard, Esq., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 106 (Dec. 27, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. V. Gerrard, Esq., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 106 (Dec. 27, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Capanna, M.D. V. Orth, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Pengxiang Tian
Capanna, M.D. V. Orth, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Pengxiang Tian
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that Orth’s counsel violated the golden rule arguments, but opposing party’s substantial rights were not violated. Moreover, the district court’s ruling regarding plaintiff expert’s potential biases did not impose severe limitations on Capanna’s ability to fully cross-examine plaintiff’s expert. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Orth to supplement expert witness list and the award of attorney fees and costs was within the discretion of the district court. Lastly, Orth lacks standing in challenging the district court’s decision.
Dolorfino V. Univ. Med. Ctr. Of S. Nev., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 4, 2018), Steven Brecher
Dolorfino V. Univ. Med. Ctr. Of S. Nev., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 4, 2018), Steven Brecher
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that a claim of injury suffered during medical treatment may not be dismissed for lack of a supporting affidavit from a medical expert if the injured body part is not “directly involved in” or “proximate” to the treatment, where those phrases are to be interpreted quite narrowly.
Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS 41A was not intended to clarify the previous statute’s original intent; and (2) The 2015 Legislature intended for the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS Chapter 41A to apply prospectively.
Peck V. Zipf, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 28, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Peck V. Zipf, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 28, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRS 41A.071, a plaintiff’s malpractice claim must be dismissed if the claim is not accompanied by an expert affidavit, but NRS 41A.100(1) states that the expert affidavit need not be submitted if the medical malpractice claim is argued under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Because the appellant failed to prove that the instrument left in his body was the result of surgery, the claim was properly dismissed in that the claim did not satisfy the elements to permit the statutory exception of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Likewise, NRS 41A.071 does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process …
State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert
State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that NRS 604A.408(2)(f) bars a licensee from bringing any type of enforcement action on a refinancing loan under the statute. This is because allowing for enforcement action would go against the legislative purpose of the statute.
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. V. Payo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 26, 2017), Alma Orozco
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. V. Payo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 26, 2017), Alma Orozco
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Implied assumption of the risk does not apply when a student is required to participate in a physical education class because the doctrine’s “voluntariness” element is not satisfied. Discretionary-function immunity does not apply when cases allege inadequate supervision or instruction because such decisions, while discretionary, are not policy-based, as the discretionary-immunity test requires. Decisions are not entitled to discretionary-function immunity unless they entail governmental planning or policy formulation, which involves economic, social, and political considerations.
Szymborski V. Spring Mtn. Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Oct. 26, 2017), Paloma Guerrero
Szymborski V. Spring Mtn. Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Oct. 26, 2017), Paloma Guerrero
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined medical malpractice, and subsequent adherence to NRS 41A.071, involves a medical diagnosis, treatment, or judgment, and when the standards of care pertaining to the medical issue require explanation to the jury from a medical expert at trial. Therefore, Szymborski’s claims for negligence, malpractice, gross negligence, negligence per se, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision state claims for relief which were not based on a medical treatment or judgment and should not have been dismissed for failure to attach the NRS 41A.071 affidavit.
Humphries V. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Oct. 5, 2017), Emily Meibert
Humphries V. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Oct. 5, 2017), Emily Meibert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An innkeeper is liable under NRS 651.015 if an injured patron can show that they suffered foreseeable harm; foreseeability is established when the innkeeper fails to exercise due care for the safety of its patrons or if the innkeeper had notice or knowledge of prior incidents of similar acts on the premises. Notice or knowledge of prior incidents of similar acts is a case-by-case analysis, and requires the district court consider similar wrongful acts in terms of the location of the attack, level of violence, and implicated security concerns.
Ford Motor Co. V. Trejo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 27, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Ford Motor Co. V. Trejo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 27, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court declined to adopt the risk-utility analysis. The consumer-expectation test is the appropriate standard for strict products liability claims in Nevada, and the risk-utility analysis is inappropriate because it inserts aspects of negligence into the test and unfairly burdens plaintiffs.
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 14, 2017), Carmen Gilbert
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 14, 2017), Carmen Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional bad-faith tort claims. The Court also expressly adopted the false light invasion of privacy right of action in order to fully protect privacy interests. The Court also adopted the sliding scale approach for evaluating IIED claims, holding that increased severity of conduct will require less evidence to prove emotional distress.
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Pizarro-Ortega V. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Hart
Pizarro-Ortega V. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Hart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court held that future medical expenses are a category of damages to which NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C)’s computation requirement applies, and that a plaintiff is not absolved of complying with NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C) simply because the plaintiff’s treating physician has indicated in medical records that future medical care is necessary.
Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery
Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A judgment for penalty attorney fees and costs against a driver in an action that arises out of a motor vehicle accident is not a “judgment . . . upon a cause of action” arising out of the use of a motor vehicle such that its nonpayment may result in the suspension of driving privileges under NRS § 485.302.
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 …
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.
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 …
Golden Road Motor Inn, V. Islam, Et. Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Golden Road Motor Inn, V. Islam, Et. Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that non-compete agreements cannot extend further than what is reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the employer and cannot create an undue hardship on the employee. It also held that courts may not “blue line” (“blue pencil”) contracts, that is change or delete terms to make the Contract legal. The Court further held that altering player contact information, so long as the information can be restored with minimal disruption to the gaming company does not rise to the level of conversion. Finally, the Court held that a gaming company is not liable for …
Piroozi V. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015), Jessie Folkestad
Piroozi V. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015), Jessie Folkestad
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district court barring petitioners, Dr. Piroozi and Dr. Blahnik, from arguing comparative fault of settled defendants at trial and including those defendants’ names on the verdict forms. In granting the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Nevada resolved a conflict between NRS 41.141(3) and NRS 41A.045, holding that NRS 41A.045 preempts NRS 41.141(3) and entitles a defendant to argue the percentage of fault of settled defendants at trial and to include the settled defendant’s names on the jury verdict form.