Legal Opinion

Browning v. Dixon

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1998No. 29019PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff must use due diligence to locate a defendant before resorting to the substitute service provisions of NRS 14.070(2). We conclude that procedural due process requires such diligence, and we reverse the district court’s order denying appellant Dale Browning’s motion to set aside the default judgment entered against him.

FACTS

Browning and respondent Melvin Dixon were involved in an automobile accident on January 20, 1995. Browning and Dixon exchanged information about their names, addresses, telephone numbers, and insurers.…

3Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Grannis v. OrdeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  4. Wuchter v. PizzuttiSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. McKay v. Board of Sup'rs of Carson CityNevada Supreme Court · 1986

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by11 opinions

  1. Leven v. FreyNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Callie v. BowlingNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Abreu v. GilmerNevada Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Maiola v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Marvin v. FitchNevada Supreme Court · 2010

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API