5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Adkins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 48 (Aug. 15, 2024)
This case pertains to the use of discovery- rule tolling to extend the two-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(4)(e). Under the discovery-rule, tolling would not begin until the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered the facts supporting their cause of action. The district court read NRS 11.190(4)(e) to not permit discovery-rule extensions due to there being no express mention of such extensions in the statute. However, the Supreme Court held that a proper consideration of history of the statute, stare decisis, and pursuit of fairness and justice allow the discovery rule to be applied to the statue of limitations governing wrongful death and personal injury actions, even when that statute does not expressly incorporate the discovery rule. Therefore, the trial court erred by dismissing the action and the Supreme Court reverses and remands to the district court for further proceedings
Ethics for Real Estate Lawyers Today
This essay discusses various ethics issues that real estate lawyers experience: everything from new ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) (avoiding discrimination) to rules that apply when a lawyer works from home to technological competence and social media to the attorney-client privilege and to advance conflicts waivers. There is also a social science overlay that discusses why smart people do dumb things
Comparing Gaming Regulatory Systems in Civil and Common Law Countries: How Different Approaches Can Achieve the Same Policy Goals
LVMPD v. Holland, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Apr. 20, 2023)
The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the burden of proof for an NRS 617.457 occupational heart disease claim, when an NRS 617.457(11) defense is raised alleging that the employee failed to correct predisposing conditions. In order to raise an affirmative defense under NRS 617.457(11), the employer bears the burden of proving (1) the employee had a predisposing condition that leads to the disease, (2) the employee was “ordered in writing by the examining physician” to correct the predisposing condition, (3) the employee failed to correct the predisposing condition, and (4) the correction was “within the ability of the employee.”2 It is not enough to show that the employee failed to correct the predisposing condition leading to heart disease; employers also have the burden to show that the employee had the ability to correct the condition
Arce v. Sanchez, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 22, 2022)
Judge Stiglich issued the opinion. The issue was of first impression and asked if under NRCP 60(b) a District court could set aside a judgment, confirming a court-annexed arbitration award.2 This would go against Nevada Arbitration Rule (NAR) 19(C) limiting post-judgment relief only to that which corrects clerical mistakes and errors.3 The court held NAR 19(C) prevents a district court from granting post -judgment relief under NRCP 60(b) in the form of setting aside a judgment confirming an arbitration award. Thus, the court remanded and reversed the district court’s judgment and gave instructions to reinstate the arbitration award
Hamza Zalyaul v. State of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Nov. 23, 2022)
In considering whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over felonious acts committed by minors who avoid charges until adulthood, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile courts have exclusive jurisdiction over delinquent acts unless otherwise provided under NRS 62B.335
Clark NMSD, LLC, d/b/a The Sanctuary, v. Jennifer M. Goldstein, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Nov. 23, 2022)
NRS 31.070 outlines a process for determining title to property that is being questioned. The process allows an entity served with a writ of attachment the opportunity to request a hearing to determine the correct title for the property. This process grants an entity, even a third-party entity, standing to challenge a district court’s order by following the process outlined in NRS 31.070