The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, and thus, the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint was mandatory. However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because the district court mischaracterized NRS 116.3116(6) as a statute of limitations when it only limits the amount of actionable unpaid HOA assessments. Finally, the Court found that appellant’s subsequent action would not be barred by statute of limitations
The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member...
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants...
The Court determined two issues:1) whether NRCP 41(e)’s provision requiring dismissal for want of pr...
The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, an...
The Court considered whether statutory limitation periods for constructional defects may be contract...
In an opinion drafted by Justice Stiglich, the Court considered whether HOA’s have a statutory duty ...
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New...
This Court has previously held that the Federal Foreclosure Bar preempts NRS 116. 3116 and that a fi...
The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted the breadth of NRS 38.310 and its applicability to complaints r...
The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granti...
The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C...
A petition for reorganization was approved by the district court, and members of a bondholders\u27 c...
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern...
NRS 7.085 allows a district court to make an attorney personally liable for the attorney fees and co...
Plaintiff is the trustee in bankruptcy of a Virginia corporation whose petition for reorganization u...
The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member...
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants...
The Court determined two issues:1) whether NRCP 41(e)’s provision requiring dismissal for want of pr...
The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, an...
The Court considered whether statutory limitation periods for constructional defects may be contract...
In an opinion drafted by Justice Stiglich, the Court considered whether HOA’s have a statutory duty ...
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New...
This Court has previously held that the Federal Foreclosure Bar preempts NRS 116. 3116 and that a fi...
The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted the breadth of NRS 38.310 and its applicability to complaints r...
The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granti...
The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C...
A petition for reorganization was approved by the district court, and members of a bondholders\u27 c...
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern...
NRS 7.085 allows a district court to make an attorney personally liable for the attorney fees and co...
Plaintiff is the trustee in bankruptcy of a Virginia corporation whose petition for reorganization u...
The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member...
The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants...
The Court determined two issues:1) whether NRCP 41(e)’s provision requiring dismissal for want of pr...