Legal Opinion

Carstarphen v. Milsner

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 2012No. 51631PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Thran v. First Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Monroe v. Columbia Sunrise Hospital & Medical CenterNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Massey v. Sunrise HospitalNevada Supreme Court · 1986
  5. 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

  1. D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
  2. D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
  3. D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
  4. D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)Nevada Supreme Court · 2015
  5. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. CtNevada Supreme Court · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API