Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber)
This text of Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber) (Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber)) 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.
Opinion
436, 440-41, 254 P.3d 631, 634 (2011) (identifying three factors that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to add a new defendant after the statute of limitations has run); see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Upson Smith/Reno Curriden, Arneson and Anderton Van Walraven & Harris, Chtd. RanaIli & Zaniel, LLC/Reno Erickson Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd. Whitehead & Whitehead Law Offices of Kenneth E. Lyon, III M. Jerome Wright Law Offices of Melissa P. Harris Glogovac & Pintar Paul Kapitz Emerson & Manke, LLP Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A en
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruden-v-dist-ct-harber-nev-2015.