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.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 41 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas Anchor | green | “we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo.” | 9 |
| 2 | Kaldi v. Farmers Insurance Exchange | green | “it has long been the policy in nevada that absent some countervailing reason, contracts will be construed from the written language and enforced as written.” | 8 |
| 3 | Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant | green | “conversion generally is limited to those severe, major, and important interferences with the right to control personal property that justify requiring the actor to pay the property's full value.” | 5 |
| 4 | Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Mammana | green | “when the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable.” | 5 |
| 5 | Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew | green | “when the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable.” | 5 |
| 6 | Lapolla Industries, Inc. v. Hess | green | “the rule is that the court will not sever or 'blue pencil' an unenforceable noncompete covenant and enforce reasonable restrictions in other noncompete covenants, but will declare all the noncompete covenants unenforceable.” | 5 |
| 7 | Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near | green | “courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.