Nevada Supreme Court issues 3 opinions in civil cases

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Saylor v. Arcotta - "In this appeal, we clarify the applicable limitations periods for equitable indemnity and contribution claims.  In doing so, we conclude that claims for equitable indemnity are subject to the limitations period prescribed by NRS 11.190(2)(c), while claims for contribution are subject to the limitations period prescribed by NRS 17.285.  Because no judgment has been entered in the case at hand, and thus the applicable statutes of limitations have not yet begun to run, we reverse the district court's summary judgment as to appellants' third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution."

Schwartz v. Schwartz -   "We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a full and proper analysis of whether lump-sum alimony was appropriate in this case and hold that a district court should assess not only age disparity as set forth in Daniel v. Baker, 106 Nev. 412, 794 P.2d 345 (1990), but should also assess whether the life expectancy of the payor makes the award illusory."

Coast to Coast Demo v. Real Equity Pursuit - "This is an appeal from a judgment entered by confession.  The appellants, who are the judgment debtors, acknowledged the debt but challenge the confession on statutory grounds and as unconscionable.  We affirm."



0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nevada Supreme Court issues 3 opinions in civil cases.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on March 4, 2010 9:24 AM.

Nevada Supreme Court reverses 3 convictions in unpublished orders was the previous entry in this blog.

Oral argument calendar: March 9 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0