Carstarphen v. Milsner

The error that leads the majority to find a reversible abuse of discretion by the district court originated with the appellant, Carstarphen, and his counsel, not the district court. Because a civil *64litigant may not secure reversal of an adverse judgment based on an error he invited, I respectfully dissent. I also disagree with, and therefore dissent from, the test the majority announces for judging preferential-trial-setting motions in the NRCP 41(e) context. In my view, the new test is incomplete and, in its incompleteness, potentially disruptive and unfair.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL…