Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Berkson v. LePome

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 2010No. 49261Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPickering, J.

I would uphold the district court’s dismissal of Berkson’s and Malacky’s second suit based on claim preclusion and leave NRS 11.340 in peace. Though it does not save Berkson and Malacky, NRS 11.340 had useful service left as a statute-of-limitations “savings” or tolling provision and does not deserve to be invalidated on separation of powers grounds. Ironically, the separation of powers offense is ours, in judicially repealing a 150-year-old statute that conventional rules of statutory construction say should survive judicial review.

*5051. Res judicata or claim preclusion

This is the third time…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Gaines v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  2. Bollinger v. National Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Five Star Capital Corp. v. RubyNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Yonkers Contracting Co. v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Arceo v. TolliverMississippi Supreme Court · 2009

9 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