Carstarphen v. Milsner
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By the Court,
Cherry, J.:
In this appeal, we address the factors that the district court must consider when determining whether to grant or deny a motion for a preferential trial date to avoid the expiration of NRCP 41(e)’s five-year period. We conclude that, in accordance with our decision in Monroe, Ltd. v. Central Telephone Co., 91 Nev. 450, 456, 538 P.2d 152, 156 (1975), when evaluating such a motion, the district court must consider the time remaining in the five-year period when the motion is filed and the diligence of the moving party and his or her counsel in prosecuting the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Supreme Court · 1986
- Thran v. First Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1963
- Monroe v. Columbia Sunrise Hospital & Medical CenterNevada Supreme Court · 2007
- Massey v. Sunrise HospitalNevada Supreme Court · 1986
- Monroe, Ltd. v. Central Telephone Co., Southern Nevada DivisionNevada Supreme Court · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
- D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
- D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
- D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
- D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. CtNevada Supreme Court · 2015