NRS
17.750 Standards for recognition of foreign-country judgment.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 2 and 3, a court of this State shall recognize a foreign-country
judgment to which NRS 17.700 to 17.820, inclusive, apply.
2. A court of this State may not recognize
a foreign-country judgment if:
(a) The judgment was rendered under a judicial
system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with
the requirements of due process of law;
(b) The foreign court did not have personal
jurisdiction over the defendant; or
(c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
3. A court of this State need not
recognize a foreign-country judgment if:
(a) The defendant in the proceeding in the
foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to
enable the defendant to defend;
(b) The judgment was obtained by fraud that
deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
(c) The judgment or the cause of action on which
the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this State or of the
United States;
(d) The judgment conflicts with another final and
conclusive judgment;
(e) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary
to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to
be determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign court;
(f) In the case of jurisdiction based only on
personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the
trial of the action;
(g) The judgment was rendered in circumstances
that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with
respect to the judgment; or
(h) The specific proceeding in the foreign court
leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process
of law.
4. A party resisting recognition of a
foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for
nonrecognition stated in subsection 2 or 3 exists.
(Added to NRS by 2007,
148)
Notes of Decisions
Lathigee Vs. British Columbia Sec. Comm'n, 2020 NV 79 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 10× “7 million (CAD) disgorgement portion of its judgment against Lathigee: (1) under NRS 17.750(1), which directs recognition and enforcement of foreign-country money judgments except, as relevant here, "to the extent that the judgment is .”
Perry Vs. Klcc Holdings 1 Ltd., 489 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 5× “Motion to disrniss Perry argues that, according to NRS 17.750(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of alleging that the Nevada Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, NRS 17.”
Gw Grundbesitz Ag v. A. Investments, LLC (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 3× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.750 (2)(c). A. Investments argues that Gunn’s settlement agreement with Wild contains a forum-selection clause that deprived German courts of jurisdiction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.750(1) — 2 cases
Lathigee Vs. British Columbia Sec. Comm'n, 2020 NV 79 (Nev. 2020).
“7 million (CAD) disgorgement portion of its judgment against Lathigee: (1) under NRS 17.750(1), which directs recognition and enforcement of foreign-country money judgments except, as relevant here, "to the extent that the judgment is .”
Perry Vs. Klcc Holdings 1 Ltd., 489 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2021).
“Motion to disrniss Perry argues that, according to NRS 17.750(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of alleging that the Nevada Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, NRS 17.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.750(2) — 1 case
Lathigee Vs. British Columbia Sec. Comm'n, 2020 NV 79 (Nev. 2020).
“7 million (CAD) disgorgement portion of its judgment against Lathigee: (1) under NRS 17.750(1), which directs recognition and enforcement of foreign-country money judgments except, as relevant here, "to the extent that the judgment is .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.750(4) — 3 cases
Lathigee Vs. British Columbia Sec. Comm'n, 2020 NV 79 (Nev. 2020).
“7 million (CAD) disgorgement portion of its judgment against Lathigee: (1) under NRS 17.750(1), which directs recognition and enforcement of foreign-country money judgments except, as relevant here, "to the extent that the judgment is .”
Perry Vs. Klcc Holdings 1 Ltd., 489 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2021).
“Motion to disrniss Perry argues that, according to NRS 17.750(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of alleging that the Nevada Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, NRS 17.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.