Legal Opinion

Muscelli v. Muscelli

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 1980No. 10384PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment because questions of material fact remain. We agree.

In this action appellant seeks to set aside a divorce decree and property settlement agreement on the grounds of extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud consists of fraud which prevents the opposing party from knowing its rights or defenses, or from having a fair opportunity to present them at trial. A judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud may later be set aside. Murphy v. Murphy, 65 Nev. 264, 193 P.2d 850 (1948); Lauer Et Al. v. District…

3Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Murphy v. MurphyNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Berge v. FredericksNevada Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Lauer v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Burton v. BurtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  5. Calvert v. CalvertNevada Supreme Court · 1942

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

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. De Lee v. HicksNevada Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Sogg v. Nevada State BankNevada Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Hindenes v. Whitney by VogelheimNevada Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Haws v. HawsNevada Supreme Court · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API