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.
11 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1898–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanborn v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 408 , 812 P.2d 1279, 1286 (1991) (providing that the State's mishandling of evidence prejudiced the defendant and warranted an adverse instruction informing the jury that the lost evidence was irrebuttably presumed to be unfavorable to the State). 2021See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 408 , 812 P.2d 1279, 1286 (1991) (providing that the State's mishandling of evidence prejudiced the defendant and warranted an adverse instruction informing the jury that the lost evidence was irrebuttably presumed to be unfavorable to the State). | 1 | 2 |
Salazar v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2022Rather, the period is triggered when "someone presses an adverse claim." Id. 2022We held that in such a case, "the limitations period is triggered when the plaintiff is ejected from the property or has had the validity or legality of his or her ownership or possession of the property called into question." Id. at 97, 460 P.3d at 443. "[Mere notice of an adverse claim is not enough." Id. (quoting Salazar v. Thomas, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689, 696 (Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original)). | 1 | 1 |
BERBERICH VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.green2 sentences2022We held that in such a case, "the limitations period is triggered when the plaintiff is ejected from the property or has had the validity or legality of his or her ownership or possession of the property called into question." Id. at 97, 460 P.3d at 443. "[Mere notice of an adverse claim is not enough." Id. (quoting Salazar v. Thomas, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689, 696 (Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original)). 2022We held that in such a case, "the limitations period is triggered when the plaintiff is ejected from the property or has had the validity or legality of his or her ownership or possession of the property called into question." Id. at 97, 460 P.3d at 443. "[Mere notice of an adverse claim is not enough." Id. (quoting Salazar v. Thomas, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689, 696 (Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original)). | 1 | 1 |
CRESTMAR OWNERS ASS'N v. Stapakisgreen2 sentences2020Code § 318 , that "whether a statute of limitations bars an action to quiet title may turn on whether the plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the lane (quoting Mayer v. L&B Real Estate, 185 P.3d 43, 46 (Cal. 2008))). "[M] ere notice of an adverse claim is not enough to commence the owner's statute of limitations." Id. at 696; see also Crestmar Owners Ass'rz v. Stapakis, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he statute of 4A number of other jurisdictions have held that no statute of limitation bars an action to quiet title where the plaintiff is in undisturbed ownership or posses 2020Code § 318, that "whether a statute of limitations bars an action to quiet title may turn on whether the plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the lane (quoting Mayer v. L&B Real Estate, 185 P.3d 43, 46 (Cal. 2008))). "[M] ere notice of an adverse claim is not enough to commence the owner's statute of limitations." Id. at 696; see also Crestmar Owners Ass'rz v. Stapakis, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he statute of 4A number of other jurisdictions have held that no statute of limitation bars an action to quiet title where the plaintiff is in undisturbed ownership or possess | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakesidegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 303 P.3d 67, 70 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (stating that "statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff bringhlg a quiet title action who is in undisturbed possession of his property"); Bangerter v. Petty, 225 P.3d 874 , 877-79 & n.8 (Utah 2009) (so holding and listing cases from other jurisdictions). 2020See, e.g., Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 303 P.3d 67, 70 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (stating that "statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff bringhlg a quiet title action who is in undisturbed possession of his property"); Bangerter v. Petty, 225 P.3d 874, 877-79 & n.8 (Utah 2009) (so holding and listing cases from other jurisdictions). | 1 | 1 |
Mayer v. L&B REAL ESTATEgreen2 sentences2020Code § 318 , that "whether a statute of limitations bars an action to quiet title may turn on whether the plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the lane (quoting Mayer v. L&B Real Estate, 185 P.3d 43, 46 (Cal. 2008))). "[M] ere notice of an adverse claim is not enough to commence the owner's statute of limitations." Id. at 696; see also Crestmar Owners Ass'rz v. Stapakis, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he statute of 4A number of other jurisdictions have held that no statute of limitation bars an action to quiet title where the plaintiff is in undisturbed ownership or posses 2020Code § 318, that "whether a statute of limitations bars an action to quiet title may turn on whether the plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the lane (quoting Mayer v. L&B Real Estate, 185 P.3d 43, 46 (Cal. 2008))). "[M] ere notice of an adverse claim is not enough to commence the owner's statute of limitations." Id. at 696; see also Crestmar Owners Ass'rz v. Stapakis, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he statute of 4A number of other jurisdictions have held that no statute of limitation bars an action to quiet title where the plaintiff is in undisturbed ownership or possess | 1 | 1 |
Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp.green2 sentences2018On a motion to dismiss, "[a]ll factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true." Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 109 Nev. 842, 845 , 858 P.2d 1258, 1260 (1993). 2018On a motion to dismiss, "[a]ll factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true." Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 109 Nev. 842, 845 , 858 P.2d 1258, 1260 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Defendant/Respondent, and Title Pro, LLCgreen1 sentence2018Co., 499 S.W.3d 771, 776-77 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Hensleygreen2 sentences1997“This is because, absent a disturbance of possession, an adverse claim to property has no effect upon the lease.” Id. § 917, at 735-736 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Campbell v. Hensley, 450 S.W.2d 501 (Ky. 1970); Rockport Shrimp Cooperative v. Jackson, 776 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989) (“As a general rule, as long as the tenant is not disturbed in its possession, a tenant is estopped to deny his landlord’s title or to claim adversely to him, and it is immaterial whether the landlord had title at the time the lease was entered into.”). 1997"This is because, absent a disturbance of possession, an adverse claim to property has no effect upon the lease." Id. § 917, at 735-736 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Campbell v. Hensley, 450 S.W.2d 501 (Ky.1970); Rockport Shrimp Cooperative v. Jackson, 776 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex.Ct.App.1989) ("As a general rule, as long as the tenant is not disturbed in its possession, a tenant is estopped to deny his landlord's title or to claim adversely to him, and it is immaterial whether the landlord had title at the time the lease was entered into."). | 1 | 1 |
Rockport Shrimp Cooperative v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1997“This is because, absent a disturbance of possession, an adverse claim to property has no effect upon the lease.” Id. § 917, at 735-736 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Campbell v. Hensley, 450 S.W.2d 501 (Ky. 1970); Rockport Shrimp Cooperative v. Jackson, 776 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989) (“As a general rule, as long as the tenant is not disturbed in its possession, a tenant is estopped to deny his landlord’s title or to claim adversely to him, and it is immaterial whether the landlord had title at the time the lease was entered into.”). 1997"This is because, absent a disturbance of possession, an adverse claim to property has no effect upon the lease." Id. § 917, at 735-736 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Campbell v. Hensley, 450 S.W.2d 501 (Ky.1970); Rockport Shrimp Cooperative v. Jackson, 776 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex.Ct.App.1989) ("As a general rule, as long as the tenant is not disturbed in its possession, a tenant is estopped to deny his landlord's title or to claim adversely to him, and it is immaterial whether the landlord had title at the time the lease was entered into."). | 1 | 1 |
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Zenith Radio Corp.green2 sentences1992Exchange v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648, 651 , 747 P.2d 911, 914 (1987). 1992Exchange v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648, 651 , 747 P.2d 911, 914 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bangerter v. Petty
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 303 P.3d 67, 70 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (stating that "statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff bringhlg a quiet title action who is in undisturbed possession of his property"); Bangerter v. Petty, 225 P.3d 874 , 877-79 & n.8 (Utah 2009) (so holding and listing cases from other jurisdictions). 2020See, e.g., Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 303 P.3d 67, 70 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (stating that "statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff bringhlg a quiet title action who is in undisturbed possession of his property"); Bangerter v. Petty, 225 P.3d 874, 877-79 & n.8 (Utah 2009) (so holding and listing cases from other jurisdictions). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Berto v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence1958In the recent case of Berto v. Wilson, 74 Nev. 126 , 324 P.2d 843 , we noted the distinction between two classes of cases in determining the sufficiency of a discovery. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Stanley v. Sierra Nevada Silver Min. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1949An action may be brought by one or more persons against any other person or persons for the 'purpose of determining an adverse claim which the latter makes against the former, for money or property, upon an alleged obligation or liability of any nature or kind, or upon any claim for an accounting, or for any other legal equitable relief.” 2 The learned district judge further stated: “For a case on this point see Stanley v. Sierra Nevada Silver Mining Company, [O.O.], 118 F. 931 .” The reference is apparently in error. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co.
neutral
1 sentence1913Conflicts in respect to extra-lateral rights growing out of locations whose surfaces do not conflict, and which are therefore beyond the purview of the proceedings in the land department, are matters solely for the determination of the courts when brought before them. ” See, also, same case, 109 Fed. 538 , and 186 U. S. 482 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
United States v. Klipstein & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1913Conflicts in respect to extra-lateral rights growing out of locations whose surfaces do not conflict, and which are therefore beyond the purview of the proceedings in the land department, are matters solely for the determination of the courts when brought before them. ” See, also, same case, 109 Fed. 538 , and 186 U. S. 482 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1898Co., 43 Fed. 219 .) “ The statute makes such a proceeding regularly prosecuted when the period of notice is completed, without the presentation of an adverse claim absolutely conclusive against adverse claims. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Hamilton v. Southern Nev. Gold & Silver Min. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1898Co., 13 Saw. 113 .) “The publication and posting of"notice of the application for patent is a process which brings all adverse claimants into court — a summons to all persons whose interests may be affected by the issuance of a patent to the tract applied for to appear and file their adverse claim.” (Lindley on Minés, sec. 713, and cases cited.) “ It is so well established as to be axiomatic, that a failure *288 to file an adverse claim within the time fixed by law operates as a waiver of all rights which were the proper subject of such a claim.” (Lindley, sec. 742, note 1.) We find no valid r | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.