5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Lucky Lucy D LLC v. LGS Casino LLC, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Aug. 24, 2023)
Get PDFA party asserting a breach of an ordinary course covenant carries the burden to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions deviated from how they had generally conducted business in the past. Similarly, when such actions are performed in compliance with law, such as in compliance with an emergency directive, those actions are generally consistent with the businesses prior conduct. Additionally, when a contract hinges on the approval of a license, delays caused by external factors may not breach the contract if only “commercially reasonable efforts” are required and have been made
Fed. House. Fin. Agency v. Saticoy Bay L.L.C., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Jul. 6, 2023)
Get PDFThe Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Court:
Under Nevada law, must a series LLC created pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 86.296 be sued in its own name for a court to obtain jurisdiction over it, or may the master LLC under which the series is created be sued instead?
In 2005, the legislature amended NRS 86.296 to allow for the creation of Series LLCs. NRS 86.2962(2) “provides a list of optional, but not mandatory, attributes for a Series LLC.” The statutory language of NRS 86.292(2) further provides that series LLCs “may” sue or be sued in their own names. However, this Court finds that “the plain language of NRS 86.296(2) does not allow a party to sue a master LLC in lieu of a series LLC,” and answers the certified question as follows: “A series LLC created pursuant to NRS 86.292 must be sued in its own name for the court to obtain jurisdiction over it, provided the series LLC has observed the corporate formalities provided for in NRS 86.292(3).
In re Guardianship of D.M.F., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (Sept. 28, 2023)
Get PDFA district court may sua sponte initiate the process for removing a guardian and terminating a guardianship. However, the court must protect the procedural due process rights of the protected minor, parents, and guardian by giving notice of the contemplated action and holding a hearing on the grounds of removal and termination, so the parties have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. When considering removal and termination of guardianship, the court must adhere to applicable statutes and rules under NRS Chapter 159A and the NSRG in determining whether removal and termination of guardianship are appropriate
Antonio Cruz Aldape v. State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 28, 2023)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the appellant Antonio Aldape could challenge the conditions of his probation if the appeal waiver in the plea agreement only specified that by entering the plea, you “waive your right to a direct appeal of conviction.” Additionally, the Court evaluated the constitutionality of the appellant’s probation conditions, condition 15, mandated by NRS 176A.410(1)(q), prohibiting internet access, and condition 11, pursuant to NRS 176A.400(1)(c)(3), restricting entry into specific geographic areas. The Court applied contract principles to the appellant’s appeal waiver in his plea agreement and held the appellant’s waiver did not preclude challenges to the conditions of his waiver because the State is bound by the plain meaning of the words it used, and the appellant was not canvassed about the appeal waiver’s scope, thus he would not logically understand that it also precluded the right to appeal probation conditions. The Court further found condition 15 mandated by NRS 176A.410(1)(q) facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it restricts more speech than necessary to serve a significant government’s interest and it was not narrowly tailored enough. Finally, the Court rejected the appellant’s challenge that condition 11 pursuant to NRS 176A.400(1)(c)(3) was unconstitutional and the district court abused its discretion imposing such a condition because it is reasonable to restrict convicted sex offenders from areas where children are commonly found
Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray, 533 P.3d 1040 (Aug. 17, 2023)
Get PDFAppellant Valley Health Sys., LLC, d/b/a Centennial Hills Hospital (Centennial Hills) filed an emergency objection and motion in response to Chief Justice Stiglich’s decision to assign Senior Justices Cherry and Silver to its case in place of disqualified Justices Cadish and Lee. Centennial Hills argued that the operative rule for disqualified justices grants the Governor total authority to designate a judge from a lower Nevada court to temporarily serve on the Supreme Court.2 In its motion, Centennial Hills asked the Court to vacate its senior assignments and let Governor Lombardo appoint two judges in their stead. In a 4-1 decision3, the Supreme Court ruled that the Chief Justice’s assignment of senior justices was permissible under Article 6, Section 19(1)(c) of the Nevada Constitution; more broadly, the Court ruled that the Governor and Chief Justice have complementary powers to assign replacements for disqualified justices
Myth-Busting Restorative Justice: Uncovering the Past and Finding Lessons in Community
No full textA common narrative about modern restorative justice is that it is a revival of historic and indigenous justice practices that have been practiced around the world. Critics of this narrative call it a myth, arguing that the claim is overbroad and unsupported by existing evidence. Embedded in this conversation are questions about how to respect the contributions of indigenous traditions and avoid whitewashing. Such an overwhelmingly broad claim tends to lead to romanticization and whitewashing of indigenous traditions, serving the needs of largely white, Western advocates in yet another colonial endeavor. But ignoring the indigenous contribution to restorative justice altogether is whitewashing by a different route.
This Article offers three main contributions. First, it reveals the current lack of empirical grounding for the common narrative. This descriptive insight motivates the second contribution: the creation of a methodology for better ascertaining the degree to which any historic, indigenous practice did constitute restorative justice. Applying this methodology to investigate the traditional practices of the Igbo and Acholi in sub-Saharan Africa, the Article begins the work of documenting the relationship between restorative justice and historic practices, work that leads to the third and last contribution. Better conceptualizing past practices not only advances our understanding of such practices but also contributes to our understanding of modern restorative justice. Here, the case studies of the Igbo and Acholi reveal a need for restorative justice scholars to engage in greater conceptual and empirical analysis of the role of community in restorative justice practices
The Territorial Discrepancy Between Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Claims and Remedies
Get PDFProfessor Trimble delivered a presentation for the International Dimension of Intellectual Property Disputes conference.
The topic relates to Professor Trimble\u27s article The Territorial Discrepancy Between Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Claims and Remedies
Illuminating the Shadow Docket: On the Increasing Impacts of This Evolving Judicial Procedure
Get PDFTaylor v. Brill, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Dec. 15, 2022)
Get PDFJudges are required to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might be questioned, such as if they have previously presided as judge over the matter in another court. A judge is said to preside over a matter when they have exercised some control or authority over the matter, not when they have had purely administrative contact
In re Tr. Agreement, 23 Partners Tr. I, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Dec. 22, 2022)
Get PDFWhere an irrevocable trust uses terms to distinguish between different classes of beneficiary, the court must look at the usage of those terms within the instrument to determine whether a beneficiary is entitled to an accounting of the trust. Additionally, NRS 165.180 only stands for the proposition that NRS Chapter 165 does not contain an exhaustive list of the district court’s power over trusts. NRS 165.180 does not stand as an independent grant of powers not otherwise listed in the chapter