Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
The Estate of Carson Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc.green1 sentence2025See Bride, 112 F.4th at 1179 (reversing a district court decision dismissing a misrepresentation claim based on CDA § 230 immunity because the tech company's own statements to users about unmasking and removing abusive users constituted an "outwardly manifested intention" that created an expectation of safety among users and guardians of young users, thus generat[ing] a legal duty distinct from the conduct at hand" (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Epperson v. Roloffgreen2 sentences2020And, as we stated in Blanchard, "integration clauses do not bar claims for [intentional] misrepresentation." 108 Nev. at 912 , 839 P.2d at 1322-23 ; see also Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 211 , 719 P.2d 799, 802 (1986) (rejecting the argument that an integration clause barred a misrepresentation claim). 2020And, as we stated in Blanchard, "integration clauses do not bar claims for [intentional] misrepresentation." 108 Nev. at 912 , 839 P.2d at 1322-23 ; see also Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 211 , 719 P.2d 799, 802 (1986) (rejecting the argument that an integration clause barred a misrepresentation claim). | 1 | 1 |
Ries v. Olympian, Inc.green2 sentences2017NRCP 9(b) (requiring that "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity"); Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., 128 Nev. 371, 381 , 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012) ("Unjust enrichment exists when the plaintiff confers a benefit on the defendant, the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ries v. Olympian, Inc., 103 Nev. 709, 711 , 2017NRCP 9(b) (requiring that "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity"); Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., 128 Nev. 371, 381 , 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012) ("Unjust enrichment exists when the plaintiff confers a benefit on the defendant, the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ries v. Olympian, Inc., 103 Nev. 709, 711 , | 1 | 1 |
Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2017NRCP 9(b) (requiring that "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity"); Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., 128 Nev. 371, 381 , 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012) ("Unjust enrichment exists when the plaintiff confers a benefit on the defendant, the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ries v. Olympian, Inc., 103 Nev. 709, 711 , 2017NRCP 9(b) (requiring that "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity"); Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., 128 Nev. 371, 381 , 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012) ("Unjust enrichment exists when the plaintiff confers a benefit on the defendant, the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ries v. Olympian, Inc., 103 Nev. 709, 711 , | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlandsgreen1 sentence2005See NRS 40.615 (defining “constructional defect,” in part, as “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence”); Olson v. Richard, 120 Nev. 240 , 89 P.3d 31 (2004) (concluding that a claim for negligence in a constructional defects matter can constitute an NRS Chapter 40 cause of action). 93 See Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 761 A.2d 688, 699-702 (Vt. 2000) (recognizing that, when entitlement to attorney fees can be determined as a matter of law, parties do not waive their right to such fees by failing to submit the question to the jury). 94 See S | 1 | 1 |
Herzog v. Capital Co.green1 sentence1986See Herzog v. Capital Co., 164 P.2d 8 (Cal. 1945); Kett v. Graeser, 50 Cal. Rptr. 727 (Cal.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blanchard v. Blanchard
green
2 sentences2020And, as we stated in Blanchard, "integration clauses do not bar claims for [intentional] misrepresentation." 108 Nev. at 912 , 839 P.2d at 1322-23 ; see also Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 211 , 719 P.2d 799, 802 (1986) (rejecting the argument that an integration clause barred a misrepresentation claim). 2020And, as we stated in Blanchard, "integration clauses do not bar claims for [intentional] misrepresentation." 108 Nev. at 912 , 839 P.2d at 1322-23 ; see also Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 211 , 719 P.2d 799, 802 (1986) (rejecting the argument that an integration clause barred a misrepresentation claim). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Olson v. Richard
green
2 sentences2005See NRS 40.615 (defining “constructional defect,” in part, as “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence”); Olson v. Richard, 120 Nev. 240 , 89 P.3d 31 (2004) (concluding that a claim for negligence in a constructional defects matter can constitute an NRS Chapter 40 cause of action). 93 See Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 761 A.2d 688, 699-702 (Vt. 2000) (recognizing that, when entitlement to attorney fees can be determined as a matter of law, parties do not waive their right to such fees by failing to submit the question to the jury). 94 See S 2005See NRS 40.615 (defining “constructional defect,” in part, as “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence”); Olson v. Richard, 120 Nev. 240 , 89 P.3d 31 (2004) (concluding that a claim for negligence in a constructional defects matter can constitute an NRS Chapter 40 cause of action). 93 See Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 761 A.2d 688, 699-702 (Vt. 2000) (recognizing that, when entitlement to attorney fees can be determined as a matter of law, parties do not waive their right to such fees by failing to submit the question to the jury). 94 See S | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sandy Valley Associates v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass'n
yellow
2 sentences2005See NRS 40.615 (defining “constructional defect,” in part, as “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence”); Olson v. Richard, 120 Nev. 240 , 89 P.3d 31 (2004) (concluding that a claim for negligence in a constructional defects matter can constitute an NRS Chapter 40 cause of action). 93 See Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 761 A.2d 688, 699-702 (Vt. 2000) (recognizing that, when entitlement to attorney fees can be determined as a matter of law, parties do not waive their right to such fees by failing to submit the question to the jury). 94 See S 2005See NRS 40.615 (defining “constructional defect,” in part, as “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence”); Olson v. Richard, 120 Nev. 240 , 89 P.3d 31 (2004) (concluding that a claim for negligence in a constructional defects matter can constitute an NRS Chapter 40 cause of action). 93 See Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 761 A.2d 688, 699-702 (Vt. 2000) (recognizing that, when entitlement to attorney fees can be determined as a matter of law, parties do not waive their right to such fees by failing to submit the question to the jury). 94 See S | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kett v. Graeser
green
1 sentence1986See Herzog v. Capital Co., 164 P.2d 8 (Cal. 1945); Kett v. Graeser, 50 Cal. Rptr. 727 (Cal.Ct. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.