5322 research outputs found
Sort by
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Whittemore, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (Sep. 14, 2023)
Get PDFThe Court reviewed the procedure to renew a judgment under NRS 17.214 and considered whether a judgment creditor must strictly comply with NRS 17.214(3)’s certified mail method-of-notice requirement. The Court explains that NRS 17.214(3) requires a judgment creditor to notify a judgment debtor within three days of filing the affidavit to renew a judgment. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed Leven’s2 holding that a judgment creditor must comply with NRS 17.214(3) to renew a judgment and found that the procedural requirement of the certified mail method-of-notice necessitates strict compliance. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court affirms the district court’s ruling that BMO did not strictly comply with NRS 17.214 and thus could not renew its judgment against the Whittemores
Kassebaum v. State, Dep’t of Corr. [State of Nevada], 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Sept. 21, 2023)
Get PDFThe issue is whether an employee’s appeal to challenge a state employer’s disciplinary action is defective under NRS 284.390 and therefore subject to dismissal when that employee fails to attach a written notice as required by NAC 284.6562(2)(b). The court first analyzed the difference between jurisdictional rules and nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules. Then, the court considered the statutory scheme and regulations governing Kassebaum’s administrative challenge to her suspension
Table of Contents, Editorial Board, Law School Faculty and Administration, Advisory Board, Advisory Council, Sponsors
Get PDF
Limiting Overall Hospital Costs by Capping Out-of-Network Rates
Get PDFContract theory offers a simple and wildly effective solution to surprise bills: Hospital admissions contracts are contracts with open price terms, which contract law imputes with market rates. This solution not only obviated the costly, time-consuming, and complicated (and still unimplemented) legislative fix in the No Surprises Act, but it also is a superior solution since it introduces superior incentives to disclose, compete, and economize.Using data from the Nevada Department of Health and Turquoise Health, this paper explores the theory and empirics of employing contract law\u27s solution to hospital surprise bills and its superiority over other legislative interventions
Clients and Lawyers Unite: The Dysfunction of Law Firm Teams Need a Cure
Get PDFAttorneys and clients have made clear: Dysfunctional law firm teams are not working. Gone are the days when lawyers had to quietly endure poor management, poor planning, and all-around poor work dynamics. Growing pressure on lawyers to get more efficient and produce more value—and a welcome focus on lawyer wellbeing—means that law firms can no longer ignore their responsibility to cultivate better workplaces.
It is no secret that law firm lawyers consistently rank as among the least happy workers in the world. And team dynamics—how attorneys and other legal professionals work together—may be a bigger piece of that puzzle than you think. In study after study, researchers have found that the quality of our work relationships powerfully implicates productivity, work fulfillment, and wellbeing. In other words, our team relationships have a lot to do with how happy and productive we are.
The good news is that investing in healthy team practices pays off not just for attorneys, but for the firm, too. More good news: A growing body of research offers concrete tools for building better teams. This Article collects some of the most data-backed tools, explaining why they work and how they can best be deployed in the modern legal workplace.
This Article’s authors combine their expertise to bring an interdisciplinary approach to the legal teams problem. One author formerly practiced at several large law firms and now works extensively with legal organizations across the nation as a consultant and trainer. The other author brings his expertise in industrial-organization psychology, the study of scientifically based solutions to human problems in work and other organizational settings. The authors identify the principal problems facing law firm teams now and in the future, as well as simple, concrete solutions to make legal teams work better
Seibel v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Nov. 23, 2022)
Get PDFIn this opinion drafted by Justice Hardesty, the Court clarifies the burden of proof that district courts are to use when determining whether the crime-fraud exception should apply under NRS 49.115(1). The Court holds that the party seeking to invoke the crime-fraud exception must satisfy a two-part test which the party must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme” and (2) the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are “sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality.” Furthermore, the Court found that the district court may determine that an in-camera review of the privileged document is necessary before deciding whether the crime-fraud exception applies. The Court held that the respondent had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner was engaged in fraud and properly moved for an in-camera review to analyze the second step. Additionally, it found that the district court properly granted disclosure of the privileged document in finding that the crime-fraud exception applied. Thus, the Court denied the petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief