 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mikohn Gaming v. Espinosa, No. 44014,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2)(c) and Nev. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B), first employer had 33 days to file petition for review, which was timely, and district court had jurisdiction. First employer bore liability as last employer with casual relation to employee's injury as employee's left knee pain was a mere recurrence of his earlier injury.
|
|||||
| Shoen v. Sac Holding Corp., No. 41563,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a shareholder's demand prior to a derivative action would be made to the same board that voted to take (or reject) an action, a shareholder asserting demand futility had to allege, with particularity, facts that raised a reasonable doubt as to the directors' independence or their entitlement to protection under the business judgment rule.
|
|||||
| State v. Powell, No. 45263,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a trial court granted respondent habeas corpus relief by vacating his death sentence and ordering a new penalty hearing, the State was not entitled to relief under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.800 where the lengthy time that passed in the case was not attributable to respondent. Respondent's claim was not procedurally barred.
|
|||||
| Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. v. Ricci, No. 45439,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In product liability action against automobile manufacturer, court declined to answer certified questions posed by federal court concerning admissibility of government and industry automobile safety standards because certification was not appropriate under Nev. R. App. P. 5(a); answers to questions would not "be determinative" of any part of case.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
