 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Capitol Indem. Corp. v. State, No. 41880,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A surety's motion to intervene in an administrative bond forfeiture hearing on behalf of its absent principal, a company, was wrongfully denied where the surety, by way of its contractual obligation with the principal, was aggrieved pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(1) by a decision to allow forfeiture of the security bond.
|
|||||
| Cripps v. State, No. 43477,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's presentence motion to withdraw was appropriate because defendant failed to demonstrate any improperly coercive judicial involvement in the plea negotiations. However, in future cases, any off-the-record discussions between the judge and the parties relating to a potential plea agreement was prohibited.
|
|||||
| Estate of Prestie v. Prestie, No. 43921,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order that a decedent's will be revoked as to his widow was upheld where under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 133.110, the decedent and widow did not have a marriage contract and will did not provide for the widow or express an intent to not provide for her. An amendment to an inter vivos trust could not serve to rebut the presumption that the will was revoked.
|
|||||
| Ford v. State, No. 43473,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder with use of deadly weapon and burglary while in possession of deadly weapon were upheld where his right to parental notification did not bear on authority of investigators to interview him; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 62C.010 did not operate as procedural bar to admissibility of otherwise voluntary statement.
|
|||||
| Kirkpatrick v. State, No. 46319,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in applying the statutory gang enhancement in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.168(1) to the crime of conspiracy when sentencing defendant because a person could reach an unlawful agreement for the benefit of a criminal gang. Further, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to modify his sentence.
|
|||||
| Mack-Manley v. Manley, No. 39160, No. 42003,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the Murphy factors and modified the child custody arrangement, because it was in the children's best interests to modify the wife's legal custody rights and to continue to limit her visitation.
|
|||||
| McClintock v. McClintock, No. 42703,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the parties met while both were still married to other people, filed divorced, and then married the next day, the district court was not permitted to grant the wife's motion for nunc pro tunc modification of the divorce decree to change the day that she was actually divorced from her prior husband.
|
|||||
| Nev. Power Co. v. PUC, No. 41492,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public Utilities Commission of Nevada's (PUCN's) decision to allow power company to recover nearly $ 485 million of its deferred energy costs comported with Nev. Rev. Stat. § 704.110(10) and was supported by substantial evidence where PUCN undertook separate review of each transaction in determining whether company's costs were prudently incurred.
|
|||||
| Pantano v. State, No. 43426,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385 was not unconstitutional as applied to defendant because he had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the child, and the fact that she answered negatively or "I don't know" when asked on cross-examination to identify to whom she spoke regarding the incident did not render the cross-examination ineffective.
|
|||||
| Star Ins. Co. v. Neighbors, No. 42926,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616B.033 did not require the insurer to pay the employee's claim, because the employer fraudulently obtained coverage after the accident, and the insurer would most certainly have declined to issue the policy had it known it was assuming a catastrophic injury claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
