Kosor, Jr. v. S. Highlands Cmty. Ass’n, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Jun. 18, 2025)

A statutory pre-suit alternative dispute resolution requirement, like NRS 38.310, is a mandatory procedural rule, not a jurisdictional bar, and may be waived or forfeited if not timely raised

Panel 6

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvlba2025/1006/thumbnail.jp

Bridging Worlds: Narratives of Law, Justice, and Connection

Bridging Worlds: Narratives of Law, Justice, and Connection is a storytelling showcase that features community members who are formerly incarcerated, family members of those who are currently incarcerated, and students in the justice field

Panel 3

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvlba2025/1003/thumbnail.jp

Business Law in the Ring: Nevada\u27s Rebel Rules Versus Delaware\u27s Corporate Crown

This White Paper will begin with an analysis of specialized courts, starting with the Delaware Court of Chancery. It will then compare Delaware’s courts with the business courts in Texas and Nevada and will provide a detailed implementation plan for a specialized business court in Nevada. Next, this White Paper will address the differences between the corporate laws in Nevada and Delaware, including the benefits of incorporating in Nevada versus Delaware. The White Paper will then briefly discuss the proposed general jurisdiction bill in Nevada, and why it ultimately failed. Finally, this White Paper will end with remarks on where Nevada is at in its corporate law journey, why its corporate laws are better for business, and where it should be headed in the next few years

Reno Real Estate Development, LLC; and Reno Property Manager, LLC v. Scenic Nevada, Inc.; City of Reno v. Reno Real Estate Development, LLC; and Reno Property Manager, LLC; and Scenic Nevada, Inc. 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 48

UNDER THE RENO MUNICIPAL CODE, AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ARE DISTINCT FROM ON- OR OFF- PREMISES ADVERTISING DISPLAYS

Photo 1

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvlba2025/1009/thumbnail.jp

Nester v. Dist. Court (Gamble), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (Jan. 30, 2025)

When determining whether to grant a motion to close a family court proceeding, a court must consider the factors in Falconi to properly weigh closing the proceeding against the public’s right to access the court. The Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Falconi that “while the public has a presumptive right to access legal proceedings . . . a hearing nevertheless may be closed when a party demonstrates that privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to court access.

Garcia v. State, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Apr. 17, 2025)

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED RELIEF BECAUSE PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR JUVENILE NONHOMICIDE OFFENDERS ARISES BY OPERATION OF LAW AND DOES NOT REQUIRE RESENTENCING OR CORRECTION OF A LAWFUL JUDGMENT