5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Ene v. Graham, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 18, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court ruled that (1) only issues expressly or impliedly tried by either party should be discussed at trial; and (2) alter ego liability analyses apply the same to both LLCs and corporations. The Court found that the legislature intended for corporate veil piercing statutes and alter ego exceptions to apply similarly to both corporations and LLCs. Although both courts agreed that Ene influenced and governed International Property Holdings, LLC (IPH), the Court held that (1) Graham failed to establish a causal connection between her injuries and Ene’s personal use of the property, and (2) the lower court’s analysis of the manifest injustice element did not consider precedential factors like the impact on the property’s creditors. The Court reversed and remanded the district court’s finding that Ene was an alter ego of IPH
Boman v. Elkanich, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Apr. 25, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Court of Appeals determined when a patient is on inquiry notice as to their legal injury and if the patient’s degree of diligence is diminished while undergoing treatment from the negligent physician. A patient discovers their injury when they recognize the damage suffered and understand the health care provider negligent cause their injury. It found that a patient has a reduced degree of diligence to discover the harm while under the physician’s care, particularly if the physician reassures the patient that they will improve. This left genuine, factual disputes as to when Appellant should have known of the Defendant’s negligence, which is a question for the jury or trier of fact to decide
Thomas Labs, LLC v. Dukes, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Aug. 22, 2024)
Get PDFNRCP 25(a) and NRS 7.075 work in tandem to determine the requirements and obligations of an attorney when a party dies. NRCP 25(a) requires counsel to serve a notice of death to “eligible nonparty successors or representatives.” Under NRS. 7.075, the decedent’s counsel shall “file a notice of death and a motion for substitution of a party with the court.”[1] The Respondent, Dukes, died several years into litigation against the petitioner, Thomas Labs, LLC. Thomas Labs filed a motion to substitute Dukes with her Trust and its trustee, Hilliard. The district court granted motion with no opposition from Dukes’s counsel. Dukes’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss reasoning that the Trust and Hilliard were not Dukes’s proper representatives. The district court dismissed the Trust and Hilliard but returned Dukes to the suit. Thomas Labs petitioned probate court to appoint paralegal Shara Berry as special administrator. The probate court grated the motion and Thomas Labs moved to substitute Berry as the proper party. Duke’s counsel responded by moving to dismiss the case against Dukes, claiming that, under NRCP 25, the180-day deadline to move to substitute a personal representative had passed. The district court denied Thomas Labs\u27s motion to substitute and granted the motion to dismiss under NRCP 25. The Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case
Nařízení EU o geoblokaci (komentář) (The EU Geo-Blocking Regulation: A Commentary)
No full textProfessor Trimble delivered a presentation about her book The EU Geo-blocking Regulation: A Commentary (Edward Elgar, 2024) at a book launch event organized by the Czech national group of ALAI - Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (The International Literary and Artistic Association). The event was co-sponsored by the Association of Commercial Television
Wynn v. Associated Press, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sept. 5, 2024)
Get PDFNevada law recognizes the importance of First Amendment rights and the chilling effect that defamation suits can have on free speech and the right to petition. To mitigate this, Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes allow defendants to file a special motion to dismiss, enabling early resolution of meritless claims. Courts follow a two-pronged framework to resolve these motions. Under prong one, defendants must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is based on a good faith communication on an issue of public concern. If this burden is met, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff under the second prong to present prima facie evidence demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the claim. Additionally, if the case involves a public figure as the plaintiff, they must demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that the communication was made with actual malice. In this case, respondents satisfied their burden under prong one, while the plaintiff failed to meet his burden under prong two. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision granting the respondents’ renewed special motion to dismiss
State, Sec’y of State v. Wendland, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Sept. 26, 2024)
Get PDFThe Court held that NAC 284.6562(2)(b)’s attachment requirement only needs substantial compliance by employees through accurately completing and signing an NDP-54 form. If there is a motion to dismiss for failure to attach a copy of the written discipline, then the employee must attach a copy of the written discipline in response to the motion to dismiss. Additionally, a permanent employee in the State of Nevada is entitled to (1) “‘oral or written notice of the charges against [them],’” (2) “‘explanation of the employer’s evidence,’” (3) “‘and an opportunity to present [their] side of the story at a pretermination hearing” before their termination. Finally, the court found the hearing officer abused their discretion by failing to consider whether the alleged misconduct of Wendland warranted termination
Martinez v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Nov. 7, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court upheld Jesus Alberto Martinez, Jr.’s conviction for attempted child abuse involving sexual exploitation and solicitation of a minor for prostitution. Martinez made many arguments against his conviction, contending that the operation was an outrageous government act, violated due process, and that the jury received incorrect instructions on entrapment. In this case, the court clarified the entrapment defense and applied a factor test to evaluate outrageous government conduct. The court ultimately found that the jury instruction error was harmless and that Martinez’s intent was prevalent and at the forefront of his conviction, despite the absence of an actual child in the operation
