16 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2022 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NAT'L ASS'N VS. SFR INV.'S POOL 1, LLCgreen2 sentences2022Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev. 596 , 598, 475 P.3d 52, 55 (2020) ("When the facts are uncontroverted. .., the application of a statute of limitations to bar a claim is a question of law that this court reviews de novo."). 2 Of note, appellants' reliance on White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno, 106 Nev. 778 , 801 P.2d 1370 (1990), is misplaced. 2022Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev. 596, 598, 475 P.3d 52, 55 (2020). | 5 | 5 |
Manke v. Airport Authority of Washoe Countygreen2 sentences2014See Manke, 101 Nev. at 759 , 710 P.2d at 82 . 6The City argues that Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345, 1349 (Cal. 1972) stands for the proposition that "just compensation" should be measured at the time of taking. 2014See Manke, 101 Nev. at 759 , 710 P.2d at 82 . 6The City argues that Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345, 1349 (Cal. 1972) stands for the proposition that "just compensation" should be measured at the time of taking. | 3 | 3 |
Klopping v. City of Whittiergreen2 sentences2014See Manke, 101 Nev. at 759 , 710 P.2d at 82 . 6The City argues that Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345, 1349 (Cal. 1972) stands for the proposition that "just compensation" should be measured at the time of taking. 2014See Manke, 101 Nev. at 759 , 710 P.2d at 82 . 6The City argues that Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345, 1349 (Cal. 1972) stands for the proposition that "just compensation" should be measured at the time of taking. | 3 | 3 |
Howard H. Gilbert, Jr. v. City of Cambridgegreen2 sentences2022If a statute of limitations would bar a legal remedy based on the same substantive claim as underlies a request for declaratory relief, the limitations period will apply It] o prevent plaintiffs from making a mockery of the statute of limitations." Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County, 537 N.W.2d 596, 601 (Mich. 1995) ("Declaratory relief may not be used to avoid the statute oflimitations for substantive relief."). 2022If a statute of limitations would bar a legal remedy based on the same substantive claim as underlies a request for declaratory relief, the limitations period will apply It] o prevent plaintiffs from making a mockery of the statute of limitations." Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County, 537 N.W.2d 596, 601 (Mich. 1995) ("Declaratory relief may not be used to avoid the statute oflimitations for substantive relief."). | 1 | 1 |
Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desertgreen2 sentences2022If a statute of limitations would bar a legal remedy based on the same substantive claim as underlies a request for declaratory relief, the limitations period will apply It] o prevent plaintiffs from making a mockery of the statute of limitations." Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County, 537 N.W.2d 596, 601 (Mich. 1995) ("Declaratory relief may not be used to avoid the statute oflimitations for substantive relief."). 2022If a statute of limitations would bar a legal remedy based on the same substantive claim as underlies a request for declaratory relief, the limitations period will apply It] o prevent plaintiffs from making a mockery of the statute of limitations." Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County, 537 N.W.2d 596, 601 (Mich. 1995) ("Declaratory relief may not be used to avoid the statute oflimitations for substantive relief."). | 1 | 1 |
Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne Countygreen2 sentences2022If a statute of limitations would bar a legal remedy based on the same substantive claim as underlies a request for declaratory relief, the limitations period will apply It] o prevent plaintiffs from making a mockery of the statute of limitations." Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County, 537 N.W.2d 596, 601 (Mich. 1995) ("Declaratory relief may not be used to avoid the statute oflimitations for substantive relief."). 2022City of Fernley pertinently noted that permitting the statute of limitations to bar suit to enjoin future unconstitutional taxes would be improper because it "would truncate the constitutional right." 132 Nev. at 43, 366 P.3d at 707 (quoting Taxpayers Allied, 537 N.W.2d at 600 ). | 1 | 1 |
Lara v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Nev. 177, 180, 87 P.3d 528, 530 (2004) (internal quotation marks McCallister first argues that trial counsel should have asserted a statute-of-limitations defense. | 1 | 1 |
Nika v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Nika v. State, Nev. 1272, 1300-01, 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Kellar v. Snowdengreen2 sentences2015Kellar v. Snowden, 87 Nev. 488, 491 , 489 P.2d 90, 92 (1971) (holding that dismissal is not appropriate unless the alleged statute of limitations bar is apparent on the face of the complaint). 2015Kellar v. Snowden, 87 Nev. 488, 491 , 489 P.2d 90, 92 (1971) (holding that dismissal is not appropriate unless the alleged statute of limitations bar is apparent on the face of the complaint). | 1 | 1 |
YONKERS CONTR. v. Port Auth.green2 sentences2010See Yonkers Contracting v. Port Authority, 93 N.Y.2d 375 , 690 N.Y.S.2d 512 , 712 N.E.2d 678, 681 (1999) (New York's carve-out of "final judgment upon the merits" from its prior-proceedings tolling statute is "essentially a corollary of the principle of res judicata"). 2010See Yonkers Contracting v. Port Authority, 93 N.Y.2d 375 , 690 N.Y.S.2d 512 , 712 N.E.2d 678, 681 (1999) (New York's carve-out of "final judgment upon the merits" from its prior-proceedings tolling statute is "essentially a corollary of the principle of res judicata"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979NRCP 10(a); Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, 85 Nev. 371 , 455 P.2d 621 (1969); Hill v. Summa Corporation, 90 Nev. 79 , 518 P.2d 1094 (1974) (concurring opinion). [1] On the other hand, if the amendment amounted to an addition of a party defendant, the statute of limitations would bar relief since the amended complaint was not filed until more than three years had passed following the accident. 1979NRCP 10(a); Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, 85 Nev. 371 , 455 P.2d 621 (1969); Hill v. Summa Corporation, 90 Nev. 79 , 518 P.2d 1094 (1974) (concurring opinion). [1] On the other hand, if the amendment amounted to an addition of a party defendant, the statute of limitations would bar relief since the amended complaint was not filed until more than three years had passed following the accident. | 2 | 1979–1991 |
White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno
green
2 sentences2022Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev. 596 , 598, 475 P.3d 52, 55 (2020) ("When the facts are uncontroverted. .., the application of a statute of limitations to bar a claim is a question of law that this court reviews de novo."). 2 Of note, appellants' reliance on White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno, 106 Nev. 778 , 801 P.2d 1370 (1990), is misplaced. 2022Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev. 596 , 598, 475 P.3d 52, 55 (2020) ("When the facts are uncontroverted. .., the application of a statute of limitations to bar a claim is a question of law that this court reviews de novo."). 2 Of note, appellants' reliance on White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno, 106 Nev. 778 , 801 P.2d 1370 (1990), is misplaced. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lunn v. American Maintenance Corp.
green
2 sentences1991Nurenberger supports its position by invoking the rule announced by this court in Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, 85 Nev. 371 , 455 P.2d 621 (1969), and expanded under Lunn v. American Maintenance, 96 Nev. 787 , 618 P.2d 343 (1980), and Driscoll v. Collins Home Mfg. 1991Nurenberger supports its position by invoking the rule announced by this court in Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, 85 Nev. 371 , 455 P.2d 621 (1969), and expanded under Lunn v. American Maintenance, 96 Nev. 787 , 618 P.2d 343 (1980), and Driscoll v. Collins Home Mfg. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Alper v. Clark County
green
1 sentence1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bank of Nevada v. Friedman
green
2 sentences1983The majority has further found Bank of Nevada v. Friedman, 82 Nev. 417 , 420 P.2d 1 (1966), to be controlling for the proposition that the plaintiff has a right to trial regarding the tolling issue whenever there is a dispute of fact whether the defendant had been amenable to service of process during the limitation period. 1983The majority has further found Bank of Nevada v. Friedman, 82 Nev. 417 , 420 P.2d 1 (1966), to be controlling for the proposition that the plaintiff has a right to trial regarding the tolling issue whenever there is a dispute of fact whether the defendant had been amenable to service of process during the limitation period. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hill v. Summa Corporation
green
2 sentences1979NRCP 10(a); Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, 85 Nev. 371 , 455 P.2d 621 (1969); Hill v. Summa Corporation, 90 Nev. 79 , 518 P.2d 1094 (1974) (concurring opinion). [1] On the other hand, if the amendment amounted to an addition of a party defendant, the statute of limitations would bar relief since the amended complaint was not filed until more than three years had passed following the accident. 1979NRCP 10(a); Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, 85 Nev. 371 , 455 P.2d 621 (1969); Hill v. Summa Corporation, 90 Nev. 79 , 518 P.2d 1094 (1974) (concurring opinion). [1] On the other hand, if the amendment amounted to an addition of a party defendant, the statute of limitations would bar relief since the amended complaint was not filed until more than three years had passed following the accident. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Garvey v. Clark County
green
2 sentences1979Garvey v. Clark County, 91 Nev. 127 , 532 P.2d 269 (1975); Knight v. Witco Chemical Co., 89 Nev. 586 , 517 P.2d 792 (1973). 1979Garvey v. Clark County, 91 Nev. 127 , 532 P.2d 269 (1975); Knight v. Witco Chemical Co., 89 Nev. 586 , 517 P.2d 792 (1973). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Knight v. WITCO CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
green
2 sentences1979Garvey v. Clark County, 91 Nev. 127 , 532 P.2d 269 (1975); Knight v. Witco Chemical Co., 89 Nev. 586 , 517 P.2d 792 (1973). 1979Garvey v. Clark County, 91 Nev. 127 , 532 P.2d 269 (1975); Knight v. Witco Chemical Co., 89 Nev. 586 , 517 P.2d 792 (1973). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.