Picon v. Ryon

Nevada Supreme Court

Picon v. Ryon

671 P.2d 1133, 99 Nev. 801, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 544

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1983

DocketNo. 14516

StatusPublished

This text of 671 P.2d 1133 (Picon v. Ryon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Picon v. Ryon, 671 P.2d 1133, 99 Nev. 801, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 544 (Neb. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint as a discovery sanction. Appellant contends that the sanction of dismissal is available only where a party willfully fails to comply with discovery orders. Consequently, appellant contends that the lower court erred in dismissing her complaint [802]*802where the lower court made no finding that appellant’s failure to provide discovery was willful.

The lower court found that appellant’s failure to provide discovery information was unexplained and unwarranted. Appellant’s unresponsive conduct halted the normal adversarial process. Appellant did not establish that her failure to provide discovery was accidental or involuntary. In such circumstances appellant’s conduct was sufficiently willful so as to warrant the sanction of dismissal. See Skeen v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 89 Nev. 301, 511 P.2d 1053 (1973); U.S. Merchandise Mart, Inc. v. D & H Dist. Co. 279 A.2d 511 (D.C. 1971).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint as a discovery sanction. Appellant contends that the sanction of dismissal is available only where a party willfully fails to comply with discovery orders. Consequently, appellant contends that the lower court erred in dismissing her complaint [802]*802where the lower court made no finding that appellant’s failure to provide discovery was willful.

The lower court found that appellant’s failure to provide discovery information was unexplained and unwarranted. Appellant’s unresponsive conduct halted the normal adversarial process. Appellant did not establish that her failure to provide discovery was accidental or involuntary. In such circumstances appellant’s conduct was sufficiently willful so as to warrant the sanction of dismissal. See Skeen v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 89 Nev. 301, 511 P.2d 1053 (1973); U.S. Merchandise Mart, Inc. v. D & H Dist. Co. 279 A.2d 511 (D.C. 1971).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 P.2d 1133, 99 Nev. 801, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picon-v-ryon-nev-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack