5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Eby v. Johnston Law Office, P.C., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sep. 08, 2022)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the second amended complaint and reversed the decision to dismiss the remaining malpractice claim with prejudice. According to Nevada’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act, the Court held a non-lawyer agent working under a power of attorney regarding claims and litigation could not litigate an action pro se in place of the principal or engage in the practice of law on the principal’s behalf. The trial court correctly held that the appellant’s non-lawyer agent under a power of attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The decision to dismiss the action with prejudice after the appellant failed to timely file a proper amended complaint amounted to a sanction for the appellant’s failure to comply with a court order
Apportioning Authorship
Get PDFPart II of this Article introduces the restrictive joint authorship tests created by federal courts, and the courts\u27 reliance on the equal ownership principle as a justification for those tests. Part III examines the relevant case law and other authorities addressing the rights of tenants in common under both copyright law and the general law of property, and concludes that, contrary to the views expressed by many courts and commentators, historical precedent and legislative history strongly favor an interpretation of the copyright statutes that apportions joint authorship shares according to the collaborators\u27 respective contributions. Part IV examines the decision of the United Kingdom courts to abandon the equal ownership rule in favor of apportionment. Part V concludes that apportionment not only is consistent with the copyright statutes but also better serves the goals of federal copyright law by providing a more accurate allocation of the rewards of authorship
Introduction: A Symposium on Enhancing Civil and Constitutional Rights Through State and Local Action
Get PDF
Evans-Waiau vs. Tate 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 16, 2022)
Get PDFBoth a procedural and substantive question were presented in this appeal. The procedural question asked whether a party must move for a new trial in district court to preserve attorney misconduct claims on appeal. The Court recently held that a party is not necessarily required to move for a new trial to preserve its trial error-based arguments or ability to seek a new trial as an appellate remedy.
Respondents argue that the Court’s decision in Lioce v. Cohen requires a party to move for a new trial to preserve a specific claim that attorney misconduct warrants a new trial. 3 The Court determined that Respondents read too much into Lioce and ignored the procedural nature of that case. The Respondents were only concerned with whether the complaining parties preserved their attorney misconduct arguments with contemporaneous objections
The Power of a Good Story: How Narrative Techniques Can Make Transactional Documents More Persuasive
Get PDF
Locker v. State of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Sep. 1, 2022)
Get PDFA first or second conviction for a category E felony possession of a schedule I or schedule II narcotic under fourteen grams requires the district court to defer conviction when the defendant consents to a drug treatment plan under NRS 176.211(3)(a)(1). When that statute applies, the courts have no discretion; it must defer to a drug rehabilitation program if the defendant consents