 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albios v. Horizon Cmtys., Inc., No. 41589,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655 allowed constructional defect claimants to recovery attorney fees and costs, but did not preclude application of Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 and Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.115. Developer's last offer of judgment was controlling. Homeowners were properly awarded attorney fees and costs as they recovered more than developer's last offer.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. State, No. 42518,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for possession of a firearm by an ex-felon, when defendant offered to stipulate as to his status, trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude evidence about prior felonies because the admission of the prior felonies was unduly prejudicial, under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.035(1).
|
|||||
| Ford v. State, No. 43310,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a robbery case, the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's Batson challenge as the State's reasons for exercising its peremptory challenges to exclude three African-American were not pretext for discrimination where the jurors in question had either been arrested themselves or had family members who had been arrested.
|
|||||
| Stockmeier v. Nev. Dep't of Corr. Psychological Review Panel, No. 41529,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An incarcerated sex offender was a "person" under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 241.037(2) for purposes of standing to bring suit against the Nevada Department of Correction Psychological Review Panel for a violation of the open meeting law, Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 241. The Psych Panel hearing was subject to the open meeting law.
|
|||||
| William S. v. State (In re William S.), No. 44893,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining whether or not to certify a juvenile for adult proceedings, a juvenile court properly applied Nev. Rev. Stat. § 62B.390, but it erred by finding that it was unable to consider the juvenile personal attributes in making its decision after the juvenile rebutted a presumptive certification.
|
|||||
| Bass-Davis v. Davis, No. 41015,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On reconsideration, Supreme Court of Nevada held trial court abused its discretion by refusing to issue injured shopper's adverse inference instruction that store videotape and incident report that was lost after being forwarded from franchisees to franchisor was subject to permissive inference that evidence would have been unfavorable if produced.
|
|||||
| GMC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., No. 44506,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Significant relationship test in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 applied. Nevada law applied to Arizona resident's claims for relief against manufacturer as accident and manufacturer had no relationship with Arizona. Arizona law applied to claims for relief against dealer as Arizona had more significant relationship to parties.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. 44902,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer had no obligation to pay under an aviation insurance policy where an insured failed to comply with an airworthiness certificate requirement, despite a lack of a causal connection, because the exclusion was unambiguous, narrowly tailored, and essential to the risk undertaken by the insurer under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110.
|
|||||
| Ins. Co. of The West v. Gibson Tile Co., No. 42343,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from a performance bond, a district court erred by allowing a tort action based on an alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to proceed to the jury because no special relationship existed between a surety and a principal. Moreover, there was no fiduciary duty owed either.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
