Ash Springs Development Corp. v. O'Donnell
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Respondents Karen Sue Crunk, Maurice Crunk and Carolyn Crunk commenced actions on September 8, 1977, in respondent court based on personal injuries allegedly suffered by Karen Sue Crunk on May 29, 1972. Petitioner argues that the statute of limitations bars these actions.
Where an action is barred by the statute of limitations no issue of material fact exists and mandamus is a proper remedy to compel entry of summary judgment. Smith v. Gabrielli, 80 Nev. 390, 395 P.2d 325 (1964).
The dispositive issue is whether Karen Sue Crunk’s disability due to her minority tolled the running of the…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- Feest v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Smith v. GabrielliNevada Supreme Court · 1964
- Hurdle v. PrinzSupreme Court of Virginia · 1977
- Jones v. StateHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
- Toni Lynn D'AnDreA v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
4Cited by5 opinions
- Poulos v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1982
- Bottorff v. O'DonnellNevada Supreme Court · 1980
- Garner v. HuntSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- Lavi v. Dist. Ct. (Branch Banking)Nevada Supreme Court · 2013
- Valley Health Sys., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Estate Of Powell)Nevada Supreme Court · 2021