Schroeder v. Glyman
This text of Schroeder v. Glyman (Schroeder v. Glyman) 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
court weighed the appropriate factors, including the length of the delay, the effect of the delay on the timely prosecution of the case, and the lack of good cause to excuse the delay.' Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
Saitta
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge Lewis & Associates, LLC Hutchison & Steffen, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk
1-To the extent that appellant argues that the district court's dismissal of the case was inconsistent with the medical/dental panel's conclusion that good cause existed to waive the rule requiring malpractice actions to be brought within two years, appellant did not present this argument to the district court, and thus, we decline to address it on appeal. See Mason v. Cuisenaire, 122 Nev. 43, 48, 128 P.3d 446, 449 (2006) ("Generally, failure to raise an argument in the district court proceedings precludes a party from presenting the argument on appeal.").
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Schroeder v. Glyman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schroeder-v-glyman-nev-2013.