Two Advance Opinions from 4-25-24

More
2 months 3 weeks ago #247 by Joseph Allan Tommasino
(1) 




Boman v. Elkanich
,



140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 31



April 25, 2024



nvcourts.gov/supreme/decisions/advance_opinions



Appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in a professional negligence action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Veronica Barisich, Judge.



Reversed and remanded.



BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, GIBBONS. C.J., and BULLA and WESTBROOK, JJ.


By the Court, BULLA, J.:



Issue:



“In this opinion, we address whether irrefutable evidence existed to support the district court's determination of the accrual date in a professional negligence action, thereby warranting dismissal of the case pursuant to the applicable one-year statute of limitation.”



Brief Answer:



“Because we conclude that factual disputes remain regarding the relevant accrual date, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as untimely as a matter of law under NRCP 12(b)(5).


In reaching our decision, we apply the reasoning of Massey v. Litton, 99 Nev. 723, 728, 669 P.2d 248, 252 (1983), a summary judgment case, in the context of a motion to dismiss, to conclude that a patient is ‘fully entitled to rely on the physician's professional skill and judgment’ while under the physician's care, which, in this case, precluded the district court from finding—as a matter of law—that irrefutable evidence existed to support its determined accrual date.



Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court.”




(2) 



B.Y. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,



140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 32



April 25, 2024



nvcourts.gov/supreme/decisions/advance_opinions



Emergency original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court ruling denying a petition for temporary guardianship over minor children.



Petition granted in part.



BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, STIGLICH, PICKERING, and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.  



PER CURIAM:



Issue:



“NRS 159A.053 allows the district court to appoint temporary guardians over minor children upon a showing of good cause.



After a significant delay in hearing a general guardianship petition in this case, two of the proposed protected minors asked the court to impose a temporary guardianship pending a decision on the petition for general guardianship, but the district court denied the request without a hearing.



The minors then sought emergency relief from this court.”



Brief Answer:



“We conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in failing to give the request for temporary guardianship proper consideration under NRS Chapter 159A and grant the petition in part.”



Joe T.



 

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.262 seconds
Cron Job Starts