5322 research outputs found
Sort by
In the Matter of the Parental Rts. as to L.R.S., J.M.S., & J.L.S., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Sept. 19, 2024)
Get PDFIn cases involving a petition to terminate parental rights where one parent retains physical custody of the child, or children in question, courts should not apply NRS 128.107 nor NRS 128.109. Instead, courts should terminate parental rights only if termination serves the best interest of the child and parental fault exists
Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC, v. Pavestone, LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 59, (Sept. 19, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court established that, in order to demonstrate a breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the purchaser is not required to show that the seller had actual knowledge of the particular purpose for which the goods were purchased but needs only to demonstrate that the seller had reason to know of the particular purpose. The Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff-purchaser Pavestone, LLC that defendant-seller Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose that was attached to its sale of aggregate to Pavestone. The Supreme Court also reiterated the appropriate application of the economic loss doctrine and reversed the lower court’s decision allowing Pavestone’s noncontractual products liability tort claim due to Pavestone’s failure to sufficiently demonstrate damage to any property besides the defective property itself
The Evolution of International Communications Technology and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Regulation
Get PDF
Engelson v. Dignity Health, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Dec. 28, 2023)
Get PDFThe Nevada Court of Appeals determined that the accrual date of a professional negligence action’s statute of limitations is ordinarily determined as a matter of fact. However, if there is irrefutable evidence of such a date, a court can determine it as a matter of law. The Court also held that a wrongful death claim is sufficiently alleged if it alleges that (1) the defendant’s wrongful act or neglect caused the wrongful death and (2) the person bringing the claim is the heir or the personal representative of the decedent. Next, the Court determined that NRS 41A.071 does not require an affidavit of merit to opine as to legal or proximate causation. Finally, the Court concluded that a professional negligence claim against a provider falls under NRS 41A if the claim alleges negligence on behalf of its staff
Sabater v. Razmy [State of Nevada], 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Nov. 22, 2023)
Get PDFWhen a Motion for an Extension of Time to Serve the Summons and Complaint is filed after the 120-day deadline to serve, it must demonstrate good cause to explain why the motion is untimely. NRCP 12(b) does not impose a time limit on when a party can file a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process. It is timely so long as it is filed before a responsive pleading is filed
Highroller Transportation, LLC v. Nevada Transportation Authority, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Nov. 30, 2023)
Get PDFThere is now clarification on the application of the waiver rule in the context of administrative law, specifically in cases before the Nevada Transportation Authority (hereinafter “NTA”). The Court held that arguments not raised during administrative proceedings are generally considered waived and cannot be introduced in later judicial reviews. This decision emphasizes the importance of presenting all relevant arguments and issues at the earliest stage of administrative proceedings
Falconi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Feb. 15, 2024)
Get PDFHere, the Court was deciding on the scope of the Press’s and the public’s access to Courts. After applying the “experience and logic test,” the Court found that family law proceedings are open to the public (including press) making it clear that there is a constitutional right for individuals to access family court proceedings. The Court decided that rules cannot close proceedings with a default rule and need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Prior to this decision, courts placed a harsh restriction that all court proceedings would be closed by default. This restriction disturbs family court proceedings that may benefit by having a fair determination made by a judge. Further, transparency in the Court could not be fully achieved and transparency is a critical factor to ensure accountability for all parties involved