Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district court barring petitioners, Dr. Piroozi and Dr. Blahnik, from arguing comparative fault of settled defendants at trial and including those defendants’ names on the verdict forms. In granting the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Nevada resolved a conflict between NRS 41.141(3) and NRS 41A.045, holding that NRS 41A.045 preempts NRS 41.141(3) and entitles a defendant to argue the percentage of fault of settled defendants at trial and to include the settled defendant’s names on the jury verdict form
The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal ...
The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury v...
The Court determined medical malpractice, and subsequent adherence to NRS 41A.071, involves a medica...
Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district...
The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had imp...
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the clos...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
In an en banc decision, the Nevada Supreme Court considered an issue of first impression regarding N...
Lyft challenged the district court’s decision overruling their objection to the discovery commission...
The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging an order from the district court ...
The Court overruled Barto v. Weishaar, partly granted the petitioner’s writ of mandamus, and held th...
The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district c...
The Court considered a writ of mandamus challenging district court orders denying summary judgment o...
The Court determined that Nevada caselaw and NRCP 4(c) give conflicting opinions on whether an attor...
The court denied extraordinary writ relief from the district court’s decision to compel arbitration ...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal ...
The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury v...
The Court determined medical malpractice, and subsequent adherence to NRS 41A.071, involves a medica...
Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district...
The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had imp...
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the clos...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
In an en banc decision, the Nevada Supreme Court considered an issue of first impression regarding N...
Lyft challenged the district court’s decision overruling their objection to the discovery commission...
The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging an order from the district court ...
The Court overruled Barto v. Weishaar, partly granted the petitioner’s writ of mandamus, and held th...
The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district c...
The Court considered a writ of mandamus challenging district court orders denying summary judgment o...
The Court determined that Nevada caselaw and NRCP 4(c) give conflicting opinions on whether an attor...
The court denied extraordinary writ relief from the district court’s decision to compel arbitration ...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal ...
The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury v...
The Court determined medical malpractice, and subsequent adherence to NRS 41A.071, involves a medica...