 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No. 45098,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for a writ of prohibition was denied because personal jurisdiction was established against an insurer under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065 and the Fourteenth Amendment based on the insurer's territory clause; moreover, personal jurisdiction was reasonable based on the fact that an accident occurred in Nevada and the language of the clause.
|
|||||
| Attaguile v. State, No. 43252,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, second offense, did not constitute a prior conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 458.300(4). Defendant was eligible for treatment because when she filed her notice to elect treatment prior to sentencing, she did not have a record of three or more felony convictions.
|
|||||
| City of N. Las Vegas v. Robinson, No. 42419,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an eminent domain case, a jury instruction that focused on a condemned portion and the limited uses to which it could have been put because of a dedication requirement ignored the highest and best use of the land, which was contrary to U.S. Const. amend. V and Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 6.
|
|||||
| Irving v. Irving, No. 44142,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A party seeking an annulment for fraud under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.340(1) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence; thus, a district court abused its discretion in annulling a husband and a wife's marriage where the record contained no substantial evidence that the husband's consent to marriage was induced by fraud.
|
|||||
| Mejia v. State, No. 43833,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Miranda-like warnings were not required during social worker's interview, because conditioning child custody placement recommendation upon honest answers to social worker's questions did not cut off defendant's free choice to exercise right to remain silent.
|
|||||
| Seput v. Lacayo, No. 44309,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because home extermination services fell within the definition of household domestic service under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616B.032(3)(a), parties providing such were excluded as statutory employees under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.110(4); therefore, a homeowner was not immune from liability in a personal injury action brought by an injured exterminator.
|
|||||
| Winston Prods. Co. v. Deboer, No. 45754,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, May 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss an appeal was denied as a company's tolling motions under Nev. R. Civ. P. 50 and 59 were timely filed in the district court under Nev. R. Civ. P. 6. Further, the tolling motions also tolled the company's time under Nev. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) to appeal from a postjudgment order that awarded attorney fees and costs to a legal guardian.
|
|||||
| Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel, No. 42063,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, June 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court abused its discretion when it denied and dismissed a prisoner's petition for writ of mandamus under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214(4). The prisoner's mandamus petition should have been granted because the prisoner was not required to obtain certification before being eligible for parole on his first sentence.
|
|||||
| Houston v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , No. 46198,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which an attorney was held in contempt pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030, the district court's oral contempt order was immediately effective and enforceable to punish the contempt. However, a written summary contempt order was required to set forth specific facts concerning the conduct found to be contemptuous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
