Cluster 2627222
green
· 60 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 21 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Hiatt v. Shah (2015)
Corp. § 7900.20, Westlaw (database updated September 2015); see also Callahan v. Moneta Capital Corp., 415 F.3d 114, 120 (1st Cir.2005) (stating a receivership court “has broad discretion in determining whether to permit a claimant to file a late claim”) (citing 3 Ralph Ewing Clark, A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Receivers § 652 (3d ed.1959)); Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1060 (2008) (“The receivership court ha…
“The receivership court has discretion to allow a late-filed claim, and generally, to refuse to do so when sufficient assets to cover the claim remain at the time when the claim is made constitutes an abuse of that discretion.”
green
United States of America v. Healthsouth Corporation (2020)
Mar. 12, 2018); citing to Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 19 1206 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1059 (Nev. 2008).
Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1220-21 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2008); see also Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd., 134 Nev.
Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1220-21 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2008); see also Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd., 134 Nev.
green
RAWSON VS. DIST. CT. (CAIN) (2017)
Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1213-14 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1056-57 (2008).
green
RAWSON VS. DIST. CT. (CAIN) (2017)
Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1213-14 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1056-57 (2008).
green
incorporate-us.com, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez) (2015)
Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224-25, 228 , 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (holding that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief and that writ relief is not available to correct an untimely appeal); Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1214 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008) (explaining that "a judgment in favor of or against the garnishee defendant constitutes the final judgment in the garnishee proceeding, which may be appeal…
explaining that "a judgment in favor of or against the garnishee defendant constitutes the final judgment in the garnishee proceeding, which may be appealed by an aggrieved party under. NRAP 3A(a) and (b)(1)"
green
Wyeth v. Rowatt (2010)
Settelmeyer & Sons v. Smith & Harmer, 124 Nev. 1206, 1215 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008).
green
Ogawa v. Ogawa (2009)
Ct., 124 Nev. 654, 662 , 188 P.3d 1136, 1142 (2008) (acknowledging that this court applies a de novo standard of review to issues concerning a rule’s construction); Settelmeyer & Sons v. Smith & Harmer, 124 Nev. 1206, 1215 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008) (pointing out that when the issue raised on appeal involves a purely legal question, that issue is reviewed de novo).
pointing out that when the issue raised on appeal involves a purely legal question, that issue is reviewed de novo
green
Clark NMSD, LLC v. Goldstein (2022)
See, e.g., NRS 31.460 (providing that an appeal may be taken from any final judgment in a garnishment proceeding, as in other civil cases); accord Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1214 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1056-57 (2008) (clarifying that final orders in garnishment proceedings brought properly under NRS Chapter 31 are appealable under NRS 31.460).
clarifying that final orders in garnishment proceedings brought properly under NRS Chapter 31 are appealable under NRS 31.460
green
Martinez-Pineda v. Ycc Llc (2022)
See Frank Settelineyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 197 P.3d 1051 (2008).
green
DEZZANI VS. KERN & ASSOC.'S, LTD. C/W 69410 (2018)
See Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1220-21 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2008) (concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it); Sellers v. Fourth Judicial Dist.
concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it
green
Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd. (2018)
See Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206 , 1220-21, 197 P.3d 1051 , 1060-61 (2008) (concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it); Sellers v .
concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it
green
DEZZANI VS. KERN & ASSOC.'S, LTD. C/W 69410 (2018)
See Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1220-21 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2008) (concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it); Sellers v. Fourth Judicial Dist.
concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it
green
DEZZANI VS. KERN & ASSOC.'S, LTD. C/W 69410 (2018)
See Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1220-21, 197 P.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2008) (concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it); Sellers v. Fourth Judicial Dist.
concluding that a law firm could not recover fees for itself when an attorney within the firm represented it
See Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1215 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008) (noting that appellate issues involving purely SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) I94Th legal questions are reviewed de novo).
noting that appellate issues involving purely SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) I94Th legal questions are reviewed de novo
green
In Re USA Commercial Mortg. Co. (2011)
See id. (citing Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 197 P.3d 1051, 1059 (Nev. 2008)).
See id. (citing Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 197 P.3d 1051, 1059 (Nev.2008)).
green
Argentena Consolidated Mining Co. v. Standish (2009)
See generally Settelmeyer & Sons v. Smith & Harmer, 124 Nev. 1206, 1215 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008) (considering whether the district court lacked authority to adjudicate an attorney-client fee dispute).
considering whether the district court lacked authority to adjudicate an attorney-client fee dispute
green
Mehta v. Victoria Partners (2023)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 3 U.S. 424, 429 (1983); see also Frank Settlemeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 197 P.3d 1051 , 1060 4 (Nev. 2008) (stating that Nevada follows the same rule).
stating that Nevada follows the same rule
green
Detwiler Vs. Baker Boyer Nat'L Bank (2020)
See, e.g., Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1213 , 197 P.3d 1051, 1056 (2008) (recognizing that garnishee defendants rnay become parties to post- judgment garnishment proceedings).
recognizing that garnishee defendants rnay become parties to post- judgment garnishment proceedings