show cause hearing in Nevada

2026Exam’rs, 136 P.2d 304, 308 (Cal. 1943).3 Thus, although the opposing party will be heard. the burden is shifted against the opposing party at that hearing.

2025Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533 (2004) (discussing due process rights for U.S. citizens imprisoned as enemy combatants).

2020Having concluded that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment writ of attachment and by failing to make any determinations on the validity of Lakeshore and Emerson's affirmative defenses and counterclaims pursuant to the plain language of NRS 31.026, we further conclude that the district court erred when it denied the motion for reconsideration without SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 9 tril 1947A considering the factual disputes as to whether there had been an acceptance of a contract.3 See AA Prirno Builders, 126 Nev. at 582 , 245 P.3d

2020Having concluded that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment writ of attachment and by failing to make any determinations on the validity of Lakeshore and Emerson's affirmative defenses and counterclaims pursuant to the plain language of NRS 31.026, we further conclude that the district court erred when it denied the motion for reconsideration without SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 9 tril 1947A considering the factual disputes as to whether there had been an acceptance of a contract.3 See AA Prirno Builders, 126 Nev. at 582 , 245 P.3d

2020Having concluded that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment writ of attachment and by failing to make any determinations on the validity of Lakeshore and Emerson's affirmative defenses and counterclaims pursuant to the plain language of NRS 31.026, we further conclude that the district court erred when it denied the motion for reconsideration without SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 9 tril 1947A considering the factual disputes as to whether there had been an acceptance of a contract.3 See AA Prirno Builders, 126 Nev. at 582 , 245 P.3d

2020Having concluded that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment writ of attachment and by failing to make any determinations on the validity of Lakeshore and Emerson's affirmative defenses and counterclaims pursuant to the plain language of NRS 31.026, we further conclude that the district court erred when it denied the motion for reconsideration without SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 9 tril 1947A considering the factual disputes as to whether there had been an acceptance of a contract.3 See AA Prirno Builders, 126 Nev. at 582 , 245 P.3d

2020See Margrave v. Dermody Props., Inc., 110 Nev. 824, 827, 878 P.2d 291, 293 (1994) ("A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation."); see also Allstate Ins.

2020See Margrave v. Dermody Props., Inc., 110 Nev. 824, 827, 878 P.2d 291, 293 (1994) ("A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation."); see also Allstate Ins.

2020Cf. Blair v. Blair, 600 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) (recognizing that a prima facie showing of contempt shifts the burden to the alleged contemnor to present an affirmative defense).

2020Cf. Blair v. Blair, 600 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) (recognizing that a prima facie showing of contempt shifts the burden to the alleged contemnor to present an affirmative defense).

2014Leyva v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275,1279-80 (2011) (recognizing that a party in possession of a properly negotiated, endorsed-in-blank promissory note is the note holder and is entitled to enforce the note).