Add to ORKGThe Court determined that relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) is appropriate when litigants: (1) promptly apply to remove judgement, (2) not intend to delay proceedings, (3) lack knowledge of procedural requirements; and (4) act in good faith. Further, the Court concluded that a district court must consider the relevant facts, including the difficulties faced by pro se litigants, when determining to grant or deny NRCP 60(b)(1) relief
The Court held NRS 271.595 creates two redemption periods; one of two years and one of 60-days. The ...
Lyft challenged the district court’s decision overruling their objection to the discovery commission...
The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State ...
The Court determined that relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) is appropriate when litigants: (1) promptly app...
Judge Stiglich issued the opinion. The issue was of first impression and asked if under NRCP 60(b) a...
The Nevada Court of Appeals determined that the recent amendments to the Nevada Rules of Civil Proce...
Even if a district court has already denied a movant’s preliminary injunction, the movant must still...
NuVeda challenged the district court’s decision to deny the motion to transfer the contempt hearing ...
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order granting respondent NRCP 60(b)(1) and (...
The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, an...
The court held that future medical expenses are a category of damages to which NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C)’s ...
The Court gave two holding in their opinion. First, judicial economy supported consideration of a pe...
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the clos...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal ...
The Court held NRS 271.595 creates two redemption periods; one of two years and one of 60-days. The ...
Lyft challenged the district court’s decision overruling their objection to the discovery commission...
The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State ...
The Court determined that relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) is appropriate when litigants: (1) promptly app...
Judge Stiglich issued the opinion. The issue was of first impression and asked if under NRCP 60(b) a...
The Nevada Court of Appeals determined that the recent amendments to the Nevada Rules of Civil Proce...
Even if a district court has already denied a movant’s preliminary injunction, the movant must still...
NuVeda challenged the district court’s decision to deny the motion to transfer the contempt hearing ...
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order granting respondent NRCP 60(b)(1) and (...
The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, an...
The court held that future medical expenses are a category of damages to which NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C)’s ...
The Court gave two holding in their opinion. First, judicial economy supported consideration of a pe...
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the clos...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal ...
The Court held NRS 271.595 creates two redemption periods; one of two years and one of 60-days. The ...
Lyft challenged the district court’s decision overruling their objection to the discovery commission...
The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State ...