Add to ORKGThe Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying by video conference from Italy and when it cited the incorrect legal standard to exclude evidence of appellant’s intoxication
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
The Court determined that relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) is appropriate when litigants: (1) promptly app...
The Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial ...
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was ...
The Nevada Court of Appeals determined that the recent amendments to the Nevada Rules of Civil Proce...
The Court held that Appellants provided insufficient evidence to show that Respondents had a duty to...
The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-cli...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a district court order dismissing former casino mogul Steve Wynn’s...
The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incomp...
The Court determined that (1) a casino’s knowledge of insufficient funds may negate the intent-to-de...
The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State ...
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
The Court determined that relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) is appropriate when litigants: (1) promptly app...
The Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial ...
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was ...
The Nevada Court of Appeals determined that the recent amendments to the Nevada Rules of Civil Proce...
The Court held that Appellants provided insufficient evidence to show that Respondents had a duty to...
The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-cli...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a district court order dismissing former casino mogul Steve Wynn’s...
The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incomp...
The Court determined that (1) a casino’s knowledge of insufficient funds may negate the intent-to-de...
The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State ...
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
The Court determined that relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) is appropriate when litigants: (1) promptly app...
The Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial ...