Nevada Revised Statute 41.200 addresses minor’s compromises. This statute applies to unemancipated minors who have a disputed claim for money against a third person. NRS 41.200 (2) provides the general requirements that must be included in the Petition for a Minor’s Compromise. If the claim involves personal injuries, then NRS 41.200 (3) includes additional items Read More…
California Appellate Decision Highlights Heavy Burden On Property Owners To Keep Their Premises Safe
Individuals and entities that own or occupy property have a legal duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. To comply with this duty, those who control the property must inspect the premises or take other proper means to ascertain the condition of the property. If a dangerous condition exists that would have Read More…
Taking A Minor’s Deposition
Parties and witnesses may experience additional mental distress by being required to testify about underlying traumatic events and by being confronted with opposing and conflicting allegations or information. This concern is heightened in the case of a child witness. Generally speaking, a child party did not independently decide to file a civil action and may Read More…
Rewriting The Rules On Introduction Of Collateral Source Payments In Cases Involving Medical Malpractice
Nevada allows defendants to introduce evidence of collateral source payments (i.e. payments received from sources other than the defendant for the injuries/damages alleged against the defendant) in cases involving medical malpractice. However, a recent Nevada Supreme Court opinion in McCrosky v. Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center addressed the unique situation of federal collateral source payments. Read More…
Appellate Decision Clarifies The Scope Of A Release Of Claims Against A Defendant’s “Affiliates”
When a lawsuit settles, in exchange for the settlement funds the defendant typically requires the plaintiff to sign a release by which the plaintiff releases its claims against the defendant. The terms of a release are therefore critical to the protection of the defendant and its affiliates from further litigation. As a result, it is Read More…
LGC Partner Tom Lincoln To Host Webinar
LGC Partner Tom Lincoln will be hosting a webinar on Using Trial Objections. Mr. Lincoln is a member of the prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and has tried numerous jury trials throughout California and Nevada. His presentation will focus on the most important trial objections, how to use trial objections most effectively, and Read More…
Evolving Issues Of Discovery And Social Media
With social media use at an all-time high, it is not surprising that many courts have been faced with issues regarding whether social media posts are discoverable. Some litigants contend that messages and posts made on Facebook are private, arguing that because Facebook pages are not public and are made available only to friends, the Read More…
New Ruling Highlights Evolving Collateral Source Issues In Nevada
In Nevada, the collateral source rule provides that when “an injured party [has] received some compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor, such payment should not be deducted from the damages which the plaintiff would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor.” Proctor v. Castelleetti, 911 P.2d 853, 854 (Nev. 1996). In Read More…
Civil Jurisdiction Limit Changes For Justice Court And Small Claims Courts In Clark County
New legislation known as AB 66 was passed in 2015 that affects the jurisdictional limits for cases being filed in Justice Court and Small Claims Court in Clark County, Nevada. While this new change may not yet be widely known in the Las Vegas legal community, it can have a significant impact on cases and Read More…
Appellate Court Clarifies Burden Of Proof Regarding Independent Contractor Relationships
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees or agents. When respondeat superior is at issue, an initial determination is often whether the alleged tortfeasor qualifies as an independent contractor rather than an employee because, under certain circumstances, a hirer cannot be held vicariously liable Read More…
