Legal Opinion

Spittler v. Routsis

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 2013No. 56681Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

abuse." Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 453,

134 P.3d 103, 110

(2006) (internal quotations omitted). "'While review for abuse of discretion is ordinarily deferential, deference is not owed to legal error." Roth, 127 Nev. at , 252 P.3d at 657 (quoting AA Primo Builders v. Washington, 126 Nev. „

245 P.3d 1190, 1197

(2010)); see Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, (1990) (A district court's ruling relying " on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence" is an abuse of discretion). Pursuant to NRCP 59(a) allows a new trial to be granted if…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. AA PRIMO BUILDERS, LLC v. WashingtonNevada Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Sandy Valley Associates v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass'nNevada Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Gose v. United States Postal ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006

18 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