 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abbott v. State, No. 44275,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for two counts of lewdness with a minor under the age of 14 were improper because the admission of prior false allegations by the victim should have been permitted and defendant was entitled to an independent psychological examination of the victim.
|
|||||
| Baltazar-Monterrosa v. State, No. 44302,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Translations of statements Spanish-speaking defendant made to police were properly admitted into evidence because nothing in record indicated that police translations were substantially inaccurate. Defendant stipulated to translations' accuracy during his trial, and two court interpreters testified that they agreed with the stipulation to accuracy.
|
|||||
| Bongiovi v. Sullivan, No. 43194,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a doctor defamed a plastic surgeon by telling his patient that he killed a woman, the surgeon was entitled to recover $ 250,000 in punitive damages; the award did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The plastic surgeon was not a limited-purpose public figure; therefore, an actual malice instruction was not required.
|
|||||
| Century Steel, Inc. v. Div. of Indus. Rels., No. 43916,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 618.635 was nearly identical to 29 U.S.C.S. § 666, so the federal construction of willful was used in Nevada; as such, a determination that an employer had willfully violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.760 was upheld where the evidence showed that an employee killed in a fall and several others were not using fall protection systems.
|
|||||
| Ennis v. State, No. 43556,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the inmate's conviction became final before the Crawford case was decided and because the Crawford decision did not apply retroactively, the inmate was not entitled to relief on his claim that statements by officers and family members constituted testimonial hearsay that would have been excluded under Crawford.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. State, No. 46501,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to receive credit for time served in another state and time served in Nevada awaiting return to that state under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.055(2)(b) because he was already in prison when he committed an escape. New procedures outlined for credit motions were established, but they did not apply to defendant in this case.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Enter. Leasing Company-West, No. 42493,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a short-term lessor's liability under an insurance policy issued pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 482.205 was conditioned solely upon a short-term lessee's liability, and the acceptance of an offer of judgment under Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 extinguished such, the dismissal of a case seeking to recover the benefits provided by the lessor was proper.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. Jones, No. 43828,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parental preference in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.480(3) did not apply to custody modifications between a parent and nonparent; therefore, a district court erred by applying this preference to a father's motion to modify a grandmother's custody and not having him satisfy the two-prong modification test.
|
|||||
| Kerala Props., Inc. v. Familian, No. 44938,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of contract action, trial court did not err in determining that the prejudgment interest rate under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(1) was single rate in effect on date when parties signed contract because that was date when the breaching party, the seller of land, incurred obligations to the nonbreaching party, the potential buyer of the land.
|
|||||
| McCarran Int'l Airport v. Sisolak, No. 41646,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where height restriction ordinances authorized airplanes to make a permanent, physical invasion of the landowner's airspace, a Loretto-type regulatory per se taking occurred. The Fifth Amendment and Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8(6) required an award of just compensation, including prejudgment interest.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
