Tag: NRS 18.020

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 2, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 2, 2020

Cummings v. Barber

  • Does Nevada NRS 41A.100, Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute, apply where a surgeon fails to remove a foreign object that was implanted and left inside a patient’s body during a previous surgery.

Jaramillo v. Ramos

  • Must a plaintiff relying on NRS 41A.100, Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute’s presumption for a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action, provide expert testimony to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Jones v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n

  • Pursuant to NRS 104.3309, how must an enforcing party show that it had the right to enforce a note when it lost possession or acquired ownership of the note from a party that had the right to enforce it.

LVMPD v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting

  • Does a requesting party, who requests nonconfidential public records from a governmental entity, prevail for the purposes of awarding attorney fees and costs when the parties reach an agreement that affords the requesting party access to the requested records before the court enters judgment on the merits.

145 E. Harmon II Tr. v. Res. at MGM Grand

  • Does a voluntary dismissal with prejudice convey prevailing party status on a defendant to allow the recovery of attorney fees and costs pursuant to NRS 18.010 and NRS 18.020.

In re Colman Family Revocable Living Tr.

  • Does NRS 111.781, which governs the effects of divorce on nonprobate transfers of property, revoke a spouse’s interest in property.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 2, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 2, 2018

COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE

  • Does the Parole Board’s use of the Static-99R recidivism risk assessment comply with the relevant statutory provisions governing parole review for prisoners convicted of sexual offenses.

SHORES VS. GLOBAL EXPERIENCE SPECIALISTS, INC.

  • Must a noncompete agreement that imposes a nationwide restriction be limited to the geographical areas in which an employer has particular business interests.

N. NEVADA HOMES, LLC VS. GL CONSTR., INC.

  • What is the proper method of determining the prevailing party when faced with both a settlement and a damages recovery.

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.L., N.R.B., H.R.B., W.C.B. C/W 71889

  • Does the termination of parental rights bases on the parents’ refusal to admit to abuse violate their Fifth Amendment rights.

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (NRAP 5)

  • Does NRS 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS 107.090 require a homeowner’s association to provide notices of default and/or sale to persons or entities holding a subordinate interest even when such persons or entities did not request notice, prior to the amendment that took effect on October 1, 2015.

GRANADA-RUIZ (GAMBINO) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • When does double jeopardy prohibit a retrial.

CLARK CTY. VS. HQ METRO, LLC

  • Does an order for immediate occupancy permitting a party to occupy a permanent easement vest a right to compensation.

NEVADA RECYCLING AND SALVAGE, LTD VS. RENO DISPOSAL CO., INC.

  • Were the appellants injured in their business and therefore have standing to assert their claim under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act (UTPA).

HUBBARD (CORY) VS. STATE

  • Must the defense place intent or absence of mistake at issue before the State can seek admission of prior act evidence.

RIPPO (MICHAEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 14, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 14, 2017

FACKLAM VS. HSBC BANK USA

  • Does NRS 11.190(1)(b)’s statute of limitations for contract actions apply to nonjudicial foreclosures.

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. BUCKLES

  • Does NRS 200.620, which requires both parties to consent to the recording of a telephone call, apply to the recording of interstate calls when the act of recording takes place outside Nevada.

THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • When a defendant requests a mistrial, does double jeopardy bar reprosecution when a prosecutor intentionally proceeds in a course of egregious and improper conduct that causes prejudice to the defendant.

 PROPERTY PLUS INV.’S, LLC VS. MORTG. ELEC. REGISTRATION SYS., INC.

  • Is an HOA limited to only one superpriority lien per parcel of property forever.
  • Does an HOA lien survive bankruptcy even though the homeowner’s personal obligation is extinguished upon a Chapter 7 discharge.

IN RE: DISH NETWORK DERIVATIVE LITIG. C/W 69012

  • What is the appropriate legal standard for a district court’s consideration of a company’s board of directors created special litigation committee’s (SLC) motion to defer to the SLC’s recommendation that derivative claims should be dismissed.

O.P.H. OF LAS VEGAS, INC. VS. OREGON MUT. INS. CO.

  • Does NRS 687B.360 require an insurance policy cancellation notice to contain a statement of a policyholder’s right to request additional information to be effective.
  • Under Nevada law, does an insurance broker who obtains an insurance policy for a client have a duty to monitor the client’s premium payments and to alert the client when the policy is about to be canceled for nonpayment of premiums.

PARAMETRIC SOUND CORP. VS. DIST. CT. (RAKAUSKAS)

  • Do shareholders lack standing to sue a corporation and its directors because the shareholders’ claims are derivative, not ones asserting direct injury.

PALIOTTA VS. STATE, DEP’T OF CORRECTONS

  • Did the State’s complete denial of an inmate’s request for either an Egyptian or kosher diet substantially burden the exercise of the inmate’s religious beliefs.

FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATT

  • Does the exception to government immunity for intentional torts and bad faith conduct survive the Nevada Supreme Court’s adoption of the federal test for discretionary function immunity.
  • Based on comity, is it reasonable to provide the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (FTB) with the same protection of California law, to grant FTB immunity from punitive damages.
  • Are medical records mandatory in order to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.