Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Dram Shop Wonderland Castle Withstands Surprise Attack

Previous blogs have discussed the long standing rule in Nevada that a proprietor’s sale of alcohol is not the proximate cause of injury to either the consumer or a victim of the consumer of the beverage.The most recent case that was discussed was Rodriguez v. Primmadonna Co., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (2009), discussed HERE.  That case involved inebriated casino patrons who had been kicked out of a casino, with the casino’s knowledge that they would be departing in a vehicle.  An ensuing accident … [Read more...]

Nevada’s Mandatory Court-Annexed Arbitration Program Survives Constitiutional Challenge

In the recent Nevada Supreme Court opinion of Zamora v. Price, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. 32, 213 P.3d 490 (2009), two aspects of Nevada’s Mandatory Court Annexed Arbitration Program survived constitutional challenge.Nevada’s Mandatory Court-Annexed Arbitration Program, as set out in NRS 38.250, has been controversial from the outset.  As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Arbitration Program requires that almost all claims valued at $50,000 or less must be arbitrated prior to going to … [Read more...]

The Five-Year Rule: Mandatory Dismissal If Case Not Brought To Trial Within Five Years

Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 41(e), the court is obliged to dismiss any suit that is not brought to trial within five years.  The Rule states:     (e) Want of Prosecution.  The court may in its discretion dismiss any action for want of prosecution on motion of any party or on the court's own motion and after due notice to the parties, whenever plaintiff has failed for 2 years after action is filed to bring such action to trial. Any action heretofore or hereafter commenced shall be … [Read more...]

The Walls Of Nevada’s Dram Shop Wonderland Castle Withstand Assault

In our previous blog post, Dram Shop Wonderland, we addressed attempts that have been made over the years by Nevada lawyers to impose liability on bar, tavern and hotel owners for injuries and damages caused by their inebriated guests.  We noted that despite compelling circumstances, the courts have not imposed liability.  The court’s argument has been that if dram shop liability is to be imposed, it must be done by the Nevada legislature.It has been 13 years since the last attempt to … [Read more...]

May I Cut In? Intervening In Nevada

There are times when an insurance company may find it necessary to jump into the fray.  If a lawsuit is ongoing and the insurance company is not party to that suit, the carrier can try to intervene in the suit that’s already filed, rather than rather than file a separate action.  Intervention is allowed under Rule 24 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and under N.R.S. 12.130.Intervention may be appropriate in several situations.  A common situation is where an injured Plaintiff sues an … [Read more...]