Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Canterino v. the Mirage Casino-Hotel

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 2002No. 30659Published

1ConcurrenceMaupin, C. J.

For the reasons stated by the majority with regard to the trial court’s communication with the jury, I agree that this case should be remanded for a full trial on both liability and damages. I write separately with regard to the claims of misconduct lodged against Mr. Canterino’s counsel to elaborate upon my separate concurrence submitted with the original opinion in this matter.

In my original separate concurrence, I concluded that the remarks of Canterino’s counsel did not merit a new trial. I am still of that opinion. My prior concurrence attempted to apply the majority ruling in Dejesus v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. LeRetilley v. HarrisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  2. Perkins v. KomarnyckyjArizona Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Budget Rent a Car Sys., Inc. v. JanaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  4. DeJesus v. FlickNevada Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Canterino v. the Mirage Casino-HotelNevada Supreme Court · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API