Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber)

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided September 11, 2015·No. 68593·Unpublished

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

Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber), (Neb. 2015).

Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber) (Ruden v. Dist. Ct. (Harber)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada
950 P.2d 280 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1997)
Costello v. Casler
254 P.3d 631 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2011)