Legal Opinion

Davenport v. Comstock Hills-Reno

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 2002No. 37044PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*390OPINION

By the Court,

Rose, L:

As the primary issue of this appeal, we consider the breadth of Nevada’s statutes of repose, which absolutely bar any action stemming from injuries caused by a negligently designed or constructed improvement to real property after a certain period of time has passed. In this case, appellant sued the respondents for injuries that she suffered after falling from a retaining wall on their property. The district court granted summary judgment to the respondents, concluding, among other things, that a statute of repose barred the suit. We conclude that the district…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Skinner v. AndersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Moody v. Manny's Auto RepairNevada Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel Corp.Nevada Supreme Court · 1962
  4. State v. WebsterNevada Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Cleghorn v. HessNevada Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. MadplumeMontana Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Shea v. HOUSEHOLD BANK (SB)California Court of Appeal · 2003
  3. Davenport v. Comstock Hills-RenoNevada Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Libby v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.Nevada Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Mineral County v. State, Board of EqualizationNevada Supreme Court · 2005

3 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