 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bacher v. Office of the State Eng'r of Nev., No. 42699,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In water rights dispute, Nevada State Engineer properly approved additional water rights in a basin because real estate company's agent could request permits based on ultimate user's need, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(6)(a), but agent was required to have contractual or agency relationship with water's appropriator.
|
|||||
| Kay v. Nunez, No. 44090,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Resident challenged decision to grant landowner exception to zoning ordinance. Resident had standing, under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.3195(4), to seek review before district court because Board of County Commissioners conceded standing to challenge Planning Commission's decision to Board, but Board had authority to enact ordinance granting exception.
|
|||||
| Estes v. State, No. 43468,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving multiple counts of battery, sexual assault of a minor, and coercion, evidence gathered while defendant was committed to a mental institution for purposes of evaluating and restoring his competency to stand trial was admissible as it was used to rebut defendant's insanity defense.
|
|||||
| Marquis & Aurbach v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No. 43501,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On a writ of mandamus, a contingency fee agreement in a domestic relations matter was found to violate former Nev. Sup. Ct. R. 155(4)(a) (now Nev. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 5(d)(1)) as fee depended on modification of a property settlement agreement pertaining to both community property and alimony and, as such, the fee agreement was unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Brent G. Theobald Constr., Inc. v. Richardson Constr., Inc., No. 43155,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, December 7, 2006, Decided , December 7, 2006.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a contract case for failure to state a claim because res judicata barred a second action against a general contractor where a prior action asserting the same claims was dismissed under Nev. R. Civ. P. 41(e) due to a failure to prosecute; there was no appeal from the order in the first case.
|
|||||
| State v. Rincon, No. 46322,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, December 7, 2006, Decided , December 7, 2006.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that defendant was driving about 20 miles under the posted speed limit by itself did not create a reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment; there had to be additional indicia of erratic driving or unusual behavior; however, such a stop might be justified under the community caretaking doctrine.
|
|||||
| Calvin v. State, No. 46641,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly found that defendant was competent to stand trial because Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.400 conformed to the constitutional standard of Dusky; a defendant was incompetent to stand trial if he either was not of sufficient mentality to understand the charges against him or he was not able to aid and assist his counsel in the defense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
