bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Matter of Kunyoung Lee v. Office of Temporary Disability Assistance (Emergency Rental Assistance Program)
No full textPetitioner appealed an ERAP decision denying additional rent and utilities assistance. ERAP argued the appeal was untimely. The court found the petition moot because ERAP reopened the appeal and provided the additional rent requested
520 West 43rd Street Reit LLC v. Hopeman
No full textThe landlord sued the tenant to gain access to the tenant\u27s apartment to exterminate a roach infestation. The court ruled in favor of the landlord, finding that the lease agreement allowed the landlord access for extermination and the tenant unreasonably refused access
A Cross-Clinic Collaboration: How an Amicus Brief Helped Create Judicial Recognition of Adultification Bias in Juvenile Sentencing
No full text
Smith v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 28, 2024)
No full textThis case raised several issues regarding the scope of a valid search warrant. Under Nevada law, an affidavit may be incorporated into a warrant to establish probable cause, but that affidavit cannot expand the scope of the search and seizure permitted under the warrant’s specific language. Absent an exception, officers only have a right to follow the specific instructions listed on a warrant. Further, exigent circumstances can allow police to warrantlessly seize a cell phone, but they cannot search the data on the phone unless a new warrant is obtained, or demanding circumstances independently justify the search of the data. In this case, the government violated the Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights afford by the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Nevada Constitution search and seizure provisions
Draskovich v. Draskovich, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. (Mar. 21, 2024)
No full textIn this divorce case, the Court addressed the characterization of the Draskovich Law Group (DLG) and the issue of alimony, establishing legal principles for determining the status of businesses incorporated during a marriage. The Court ruled that a business established by one spouse prior to the marriage and incorporated under a different name during the marriage retains its character as the separate property of that spouse, despite incorporation. The incorporation of DLG did not alter its essential nature as a continuation of Robert Draskovich’s pre-marriage legal practice, thus not invoking the presumption of community property. However, the Court also recognized the potential for a community property interest in the business’ value increase during the marriage, requiring clear and convincing evidence from the non-owning spouse to establish such interest. Further, the Court vacated the trial court’s ruling on alimony, necessitating reconsideration due to the altered circumstances surrounding the characterization of DLG