Add to ORKGThe Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial because the district court does not engage in any fact-finding. Under prong one of the two-prong test, the district court does not engage in any fact finding involving the plaintiff’s claim and cannot defeat a plaintiff’s claim. Similarly, under prong two, the district court does not engage in fact finding, but instead considers whether the plaintiff’s claim is legally sufficient. Therefore, the Court concluded that the two-prong test is very similar to summary judgement because it allows district courts to dismiss claims that will not reasonably succeed
In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence withou...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...
The Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial ...
The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granti...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court properly applied Nevada’s anti-SLAPP ...
The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incomp...
The Court held that a statement by an attorney on her firm’s website summarizing a jury’s verdict is...
To determine if a private right of action exists for a violation of a self-executing provision of th...
The Court clarified that the appropriate standard of review for a district court’s denial or grant o...
In an opinion drafted by Justice Cadish, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether public-comment ...
The Court determined that statements sent to an email listserv criticizing an attorney’s courtroom c...
At oral argument held March 25, 1994, the court raised the question as to whether the jury is free t...
The Court held that jury instructions must be aligned with a Nevada statute if the Nevada statute ha...
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants...
In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence withou...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...
The Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial ...
The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granti...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court properly applied Nevada’s anti-SLAPP ...
The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incomp...
The Court held that a statement by an attorney on her firm’s website summarizing a jury’s verdict is...
To determine if a private right of action exists for a violation of a self-executing provision of th...
The Court clarified that the appropriate standard of review for a district court’s denial or grant o...
In an opinion drafted by Justice Cadish, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether public-comment ...
The Court determined that statements sent to an email listserv criticizing an attorney’s courtroom c...
At oral argument held March 25, 1994, the court raised the question as to whether the jury is free t...
The Court held that jury instructions must be aligned with a Nevada statute if the Nevada statute ha...
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants...
In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence withou...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...