futility exception (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

futility exception in Nevada

8 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2021 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevadagreen
nev · 1993 · cited in 4 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015The futility exception to NRCP 15(a) The district court also determined that Nutton's motion was likely futile "given the results of the discovery already conducted." Under NRCP 15(a), leave to amend, even if timely sought, need not be granted if the proposed amendment would be "futile." Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 109 Nev. 280, 287, 849 P.2d 297, 302 (1993); see also Halcrow Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist.

2015The futility exception to NRCP 15(a) The district court also determined that Nutton's motion was likely futile "given the results of the discovery already conducted." Under NRCP 15(a), leave to amend, even if timely sought, need not be granted if the proposed amendment would be "futile." Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 109 Nev. 280, 287, 849 P.2d 297, 302 (1993); see also Halcrow Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist.

44
Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of Clarkgreen
nev · 2013 · cited in 4 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015The futility exception to NRCP I5(a) The district court also determined that Nutton's motion was likely futile "given the results of the discovery already conducted." Under NRCP 15(a), leave to amend, even if timely sought, need not be granted if the proposed amendment would be "futile." Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 109 Nev. 280, 287 , 849 P.2d 297, 302 (1993); see also Halcrow Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013).

2015Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013).

44
Perrino v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.green
ca11 · 2000 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Co., 209 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Thus far, our circuit has recognized exceptions only when resort to administrative remedies would be futile or the remedy inadequate, or where a claimant is denied meaningful access to the administrative review scheme in place." (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)); and Diaz v. United Agric.

2015Co., 209 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Thus far, our circuit has recognized exceptions only when resort to administrative remedies would be futile or the remedy inadequate, or where a claimant is denied meaningful access to the administrative review scheme in place." (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)); and Diaz v. United Agric.

22
Rose v. Yeawgreen
ca1 · 2000 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Cir. 2009) ("The futility exception is quite restricted and limited to situations when resort to administrative remedies would be clearly useless." (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)); Rose v. Yeaw, 214 F.3d 206, 210-11 (1st Cir. 2000) ("A plaintiff does• not have to exhaust administrative remedies if she can show that the agency's adoption of an unlawful general policy would make resort to the agency futile, or that the administrative remedies afforded by the process are inadequate given the relief sought." (emphasis added)); Perrino v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel.

2015Cir. 2009) ("The futility exception is quite restricted and limited to situations when resort to administrative remedies would be clearly useless." (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)); Rose v. Yeaw, 214 F.3d 206, 210-11 (1st Cir. 2000) ("A plaintiff does• not have to exhaust administrative remedies if she can show that the agency's adoption of an unlawful general policy would make resort to the agency futile, or that the administrative remedies afforded by the process are inadequate given the relief sought." (emphasis added)); Perrino v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel.

22
State, Dept. of Taxation v. Scotsman Mfg. Co.green
nev · 1993 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021Co., 109 Nev. 252, 255 , 849 P.2d 317, 320 (1993); see also Benson v. State Ener, 131 Nev. 772 , 777, 358 P.3d 221 , 225 (2015) (addressing Scotsman Manufacturing and the futility exception).

2021Co., 109 Nev. 252, 255 , 849 P.2d 317, 320 (1993); see also Benson v. State Ener, 131 Nev. 772 , 777, 358 P.3d 221 , 225 (2015) (addressing Scotsman Manufacturing and the futility exception).

11
Engelmann v. Westergardgreen
nev · 1982 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021Exhaustion is also futile when the "administrative agency clearly lacks jurisdiction." Engelrnann v. Westergard, 98 Nev. 348, 353 , 647 P.2d 385, 389 (1982).

2021Exhaustion is also futile when the "administrative agency clearly lacks jurisdiction." Engelrnann v. Westergard, 98 Nev. 348, 353 , 647 P.2d 385, 389 (1982).

11
Palazzolo v. Rhode Islandgreen
scotus · 2001 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 621 (2001).

11
Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruzgreen
ca9 · 1987 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Kinzli, 818 F.2d at 1455 (the futility exception is not triggered until at least one meaningful application for development is submitted and rejected; “[a] ‘meaningful application’ does not include a request for ‘exceedingly grandiose development’ ” (quoting MacDonald, 477 U.S. at 353 n.9)).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County green
scotus · 1986
1 sentence

2006Kinzli, 818 F.2d at 1455 (the futility exception is not triggered until at least one meaningful application for development is submitted and rejected; “[a] ‘meaningful application’ does not include a request for ‘exceedingly grandiose development’ ” (quoting MacDonald, 477 U.S. at 353 n.9)).

12006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.265 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 116 (1974–2026) TX 29 (1995–2025) PA 17 (1917–2020) WA 17 (1989–2026) CT 15 (1949–2020) IL 13 (1989–2020) NC 12 (2000–2025) MA 12 (1956–2026) NM 11 (1981–2022) MI 11 (1976–2021) UT 10 (2006–2024) FL 9 (1929–2021) DC 9 (1986–2026) NY 9 (2012–2022) NV 8 (2006–2021) AK 7 (1988–2022) GA 7 (2011–2017) TN 6 (1995–2013) MD 6 (2001–2025) RI 6 (2004–2026) OH 6 (2010–2025) CO 6 (2005–2026) IA 5 (1975–2016) OR 5 (1978–2025) SC 4 (2005–2017) VA 3 (2018–2025) MO 3 (1987–2020) MT 3 (2004–2006) NJ 3 (2007–2025) HI 3 (1995–2025) AR 3 (2005–2017) AL 2 (1988–2011) IN 2 (2005–2007) VT 2 (2009–2015) OK 2 (2004–2013) MS 2 (2003–2006) WI 2 (2001–2002) DE 2 (1993–1993) WY 2 (1996–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check