A constructive trust will arise and affect property acquisitions under circumstances where:
(1) a confidential relationship exists between the parties;
(2) retention of legal title by the holder thereof against another would be inequitable; and
(3) the existence of such a trust is essential to the effectuation of justice.
A constructive trust is a remedial device by which the holder of legal title to property is held to be a trustee of that property for the benefit of another who in good conscience is entitled to it.
It is well established that to prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements:
(1) the existence of a duty of care,
(2) breach of that duty,
(3) legal causation, and
Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 180 P.3d 1172, 1175 (Nev. 2008);Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 221 P.3d 1276, 1280 (Nev. 2009).
With regard to the duty element, under common-law principles, no duty is owed to control the dangerous conduct of another or to warn others of the dangerous conduct. See Mangeris v. Gordon, 94 Nev. 400, 402, 580 P.2d 481, 483 (1978). An exception to this general rule arises, however, and an affirmative duty to aid others is recognized when (1) a special relationship exists between the parties or between the defendant and the identifiable victim, and (2) the harm created by the defendant’s conduct is foreseeable. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 117 Nev. 291, 295, 22 P.3d 209, 212 (2001); Elko Enterprises v. Broyles, 105 Nev. 562, 565-66, 779 P.2d 961, 964 (1989); Mangeris, 94 Nev. at 402, 580 P.2d at 483.
Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 221 P.3d 1276, 1280-81 (Nev. 2009).
“In Nevada, there are two types of liens an attorney may hold to ensure that clients pay their attorney’s fees: (1) a special or charging lien on the judgment or settlement the attorney has obtained for the client, NRS 18.015(1); Morse v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 65 Nev. 275, 281, 195 P.2d 199, 202 (1948); and
(2) a general or retaining lien that entitles an attorney, if discharged by the client, to retain the client’s papers, property or money until a court, at the request of the client, requires the attorney to deliver the retained items upon the client’s furnishing of payment or security for the attorney’s fees.Morse v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 65 Nev. 275, 281, 286, 195 P.2d 199, 202, 204″
Figliuzzi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 111 Nev. 338, 342, 890 P.2d 798, 801 (1995).
This section is a work-in-progress attempt to provide a basic reference for litigators looking for a starting point in analyzing their cases.
Also, there are two new formating issues that have come to my attention. First, a glitch in the software has caused some of my articles to lose their formating. Second, Google has instituted a block on all popups containing their site. So I have lost my citations to Google Scholar. I am working on fixing these issues.
The text of NRS 205.4765et seq is far to large for the purposes of this summary. It suffices to say that, in general, it is unlawful to use/take/publish/access/destroy (etc.) data on a computer without authorization
5. cause to be introduced or attempt to introduce a computer contaminant into a computer, system or network NRS 205.4675(5)
[Editor’s Note: Please note that this list is abbreviated as to the elements of individual causes of action and is not an exhaustive list of causes of action listed in NRS 205.473 et seq. Please refer directly to the statute for more guidance.]
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 2:10-CV-00106-LRH, 2010 WL 3257933 (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2010).
NRS 205.511 Victim authorized to bring civil action.
2. A victim of a crime described in NRS 205.473 to 205.513, inclusive, may bring a civil action pursuant to this section whether or not the person who committed the crime is or has been charged with or convicted or acquitted of the crime or any other offense arising out of the facts surrounding the crime.
3. The provisions of this section do not abrogate or limit the right of a victim of a crime described in NRS 205.473 to 205.513, inclusive, to bring a civil action pursuant to any other statute or the common law.
(Added to NRS by 1999, 2706; A 2001, 1244)
An action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish that at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor’s or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale.
Collins v. Union Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 99 Nev. 284, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev.1983)
Plaintiffs’ claim for wrongful foreclosure falls short because they have failed to allege that they were not in default on their loan obligations when Defendant initiated the foreclosureproceedings. Although Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ actions were fraudulent, malicious, and oppressive, Plaintiffs do not affirmatively allege that they breached no condition of the mortgage agreement sufficient to permit foreclosure proceedings against them. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim for wrongful foreclosure.
Larson v. Homecoming Financial, LLC, 680 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1237 (D. Nev. 2009).
1671 W Horizon Ridge Pkwy Suite 200,
Henderson, NV 89012
+1 702 522 0696
Daily: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday: By Appointment Only
Copyright 2019 Clear Counsel Law Group® | Nav Map
Nothing on this site is legal advice.