 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Bero-Wachs v. Law Office of Logar & Pulver, No. 44488, No. 46865,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney's lien under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.015 did not attach to exempt property awarded to client in a divorce decree because the property and four IRAs were exempt from execution pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 21.090 and Nev. Const. art. 1, § 14. Attorney could not include an accountant's fees when the client independently hired the accountant.
|
|||||
| Savage v. Pierson, No. 45956,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: From a debtor's bankruptcy proceedings, the supreme court answered a certified question, concluding that a security deposit in a residential lease was not exempt from the claim of creditors either as a homestead under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 21.090(1)(l) or as a part of an exempt dwelling under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 21.090(1)(m).
|
|||||
| Silver State Elec. Supply Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Taxation, No. 45630,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a taxpayer's challenge to the Nevada Department of Taxation's sales tax deficiency determination was proper as the taxpayer was required, but failed, to comply with Nev. Admin. Code § 360.452 when it attempted to enter into a Nev. Rev. Stat. § 360.395 agreement with the Department.
|
|||||
| Monroe v. Columbia Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., No. 44326,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother, on behalf of herself and her son, brought a medical malpractice suit against a hospital. Son did not successfully bring his action to trial within the five-year time period of Nev. R. Civ. P. 41(e). The supreme court rejected the mother's assertion that the grant of mandamus fell within the appeal extension of Rule 41(e).
|
|||||
| Edwards v. Ghandour, No. 43166, No. 44207,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a debtor defendant filed for bankruptcy, a lessee's suit was properly dismissed for failure to prosecute because the bankruptcy filings did not toll the Nev. R. Civ. P. 41(e) five-year period with respect to the claims against the remaining defendants since the 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a) stay pertained only to actions against the debtor defendant.
|
|||||
| McGrath v. State Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 45489,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.180 required claimant to establish a causal relationship between her mental injuries and a discrete, identifiable, traumatic event. However, claimant failed to establish such a causal relationship. Her status as a patrolwoman did not, standing alone, prove that her injuries were caused by extreme stress in time of danger.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. 46794,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's admission that he used a computer in an attempt to contact children and suggest that they meet for sexual conduct when he entered his guilty plea was sufficient to establish that he intended to violate Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.560. Therefore, the district court did not err by rejecting the inmate's claim that his counsel was ineffective.
|
|||||
| Schmidt v. Washoe County, No. 46059, No. 46925,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no statutory provision requiring public bodies to discuss, or take action on, all agenda items, a board of county commissioners did not violate the Nevada Open Meetings Law when it removed an item from an agenda; moreover, the Law was not implicated by pre-meeting discussions on the removal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
