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.
6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Egan v. Chambersgreen2 sentences2020See Egan v. Chambers, 129 Nev. 239, 242 , 299 P.3d 364, 366 (2013) (applying de novo review to determine whether the affidavit requirement applied to professional negligence claims under the previous version of the statute regarding "medical malpractice). 2020See Egan v. Chambers, 129 Nev. 239, 242 , 299 P.3d 364, 366 (2013) (applying de novo review to determine whether the affidavit requirement applied to professional negligence claims under the previous version of the statute regarding "medical malpractice). | 2 | 2 |
SZYMBORSKI VS. SPRING MTN. TREATMENT CTR.green2 sentences2020In order to determine whether the Schwartses' civil conspiracy claim is SUPREM COURT OF NevADA 2 (0) 1947A 401. subject to NRS 41A.071, this court must evaluate whether the claim "involve[s] medical diagnosis, judgment, or treatment, or [is] based on [UMC's and Valdeas performance of nonmedical services." Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. 638 , 641, 403 P.3d 1280 , 1284 (2017) (determining whether the subject claims constituted medical malpractice subject to NRS 41A.071, or ordinary negligence not subject to that statute). 2020In order to determine whether the Schwartses' civil conspiracy claim is SUPREM COURT OF NevADA 2 (0) 1947A 401. subject to NRS 41A.071, this court must evaluate whether the claim "involve[s] medical diagnosis, judgment, or treatment, or [is] based on [UMC's and Valdeas performance of nonmedical services." Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. 638 , 641, 403 P.3d 1280 , 1284 (2017) (determining whether the subject claims constituted medical malpractice subject to NRS 41A.071, or ordinary negligence not subject to that statute). | 2 | 2 |
Sahara Gaming Corp. v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226green2 sentences2022See Sahara Gaming Corp. v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226, 115 Nev. 212, 219, 984 P.2d 164, 168 (1999) (affirming the dismissal of a civil conspiracy claim when the underlying cause of action was barred by the fair report privilege). 2022See Sahara Gaming Corp. v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226, 115 Nev. 212, 219, 984 P.2d 164, 168 (1999) (affirming the dismissal of a civil conspiracy claim when the underlying cause of action was barred by the fair report privilege). | 1 | 1 |
J.J. Industries, LLC v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2015Indus., LLC v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 269, 273 , 71 P.3d 1264, 1267 (2003). 2015Indus., LLC v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 269, 273 , 71 P.3d 1264, 1267 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Coray v. Homgreen2 sentences1999Subsequently, the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Union on the interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage claims on the ground that they, too, were derivative of the defamation claim. 2 The purpose of summary judgment “is to avoid a needless trial when an appropriate showing is made in advance that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Coray v. Hom, 80 Nev. 39, 40-41 , 389 P.2d 76, 77 (1964). 1999Subsequently, the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Union on the interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage claims on the ground that they, too, were derivative of the defamation claim. 2 The purpose of summary judgment “is to avoid a needless trial when an appropriate showing is made in advance that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Coray v. Hom, 80 Nev. 39, 40-41 , 389 P.2d 76, 77 (1964). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas
green
2 sentences2017Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 228 , 181 P.3d at 672 ; see NRCP 8(a) (requiring that a plaintiffs complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief'). 2017Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 228 , 181 P.3d at 672 ; see NRCP 8(a) (requiring that a plaintiffs complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief'). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.