5322 research outputs found
Sort by
LV Debt Collect v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (Aug. 24, 2023)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a quiet title action disputing the ownership of real property. The Court held that, for the purposes of NRS 106.240, a Notice of Default is not sufficient to make a secured debt wholly due for the following reasons: (1) the plain language of the statute requires an interpretation of whether a debt is wholly due according to the original terms and any extensions, (2) state law requires a waiting period after a Notice of Default has been recorded before the debt can be accelerated, and accelerations of a debt must be clear and unequivocal, and (3) policy reasons behind the statute do not support its application to Notices of Default
Patterson v. Las Vegas Mun. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Rep. 35 (Sept. 21, 2023)
Get PDFThe Court gave two holding in their opinion. First, judicial economy supported consideration of a petition for a writ of mandamus where the issue raised was one of first impression. Here, that issues was whether municipal courts could award fees and expenses under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0393. Second, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0393(8) specifically defined the courts that may award attorney fees and litigation expenses as district courts and justice courts. As a result, the municipal court correctly concluded that it lacked authority to award such fees and expenses to the petitioner. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus petition challenging the municipal court’s decision was denied
Nat’l Ass’n of Mut. Ins. Co. v. State of Nev. Dep’t of Bus. & Indus., Div. of Ins., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 16, 2023)
Get PDFThe Nevada Division of Insurance’s (the Division) enabling statutes provide it with authority to promulgate regulations protecting against unfair use of consumer credit information. Its new regulation, R087-20, imposes only limitations and not a blanket ban on the use of consumer credit information and does not interfere with existing statutory provisions. The Legislature has provided adequate interpretation and guidance standards to the Division to constitute a constitutional delegation of authority such that the Division’s approved promulgation of R087-20 does not mean its enabling statutes are unconstitutional delegations of authority
Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Mar. 16, 2023)
Get PDFNRS 125C.050 provides that certain relatives and other persons may petition for visitation with a minor child.2 Under the statute, a court may only order visitation when the minor child’s parents “deny or unreasonably restrict visits with the child.”3 When the parents of the child have joint custody and one parent provides the petitioner with sufficient contact with the minor child so that visitation was not denied or unreasonably restricted, the petition for visitation fails regardless of the parent who provides contact
Ready To Do the Difficult Work Ahead: The Legal Legacy of Senator Harry Reid
Get PDFThis White Paper examines the legal legacy of Harry Reid, who served Nevada in the Senate for thirty years and rose to the position of Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015. Senator Reid\u27s work on land and water policy, climate change, immigration, gaming, and labor deeply affected Nevada and the United States as a whole. Through his positions of leadership, he secured funding for critical infrastructure projects, protected public lands, championed renewable energy, passed the Affordable Care Act, fought for immigration reform, and advocated for labor and gaming issues. This paper concludes that Senator Reid\u27s legal legacy is a powerful example of what can be accomplished through dedication, hard work, and a commitment to public service. By examining his life and legal work, forward-thinking Nevadans can learn valuable lessons about how to create positive change in their communities
Alfaro v. State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (Aug. 24, 2023)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court upheld Alfaro\u27s convictions on seven counts of sexual assault and two counts of lewdness with a minor under the age of 14. Alfaro challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that some counts were redundant and cited evidentiary and jury instruction errors. The Court reversed one conviction for lewdness as redundant and remanded for correction of the judgment. The Court upheld Alfaro’s remaining nine convictions, deeming there was adequate evidence to support the charges
