Recent Posts

While you are here learning best practices to protect your business, consider taking the FREE Legal Checkup by clicking here.  A Legal Checkup diagnoses the relative strengths and weaknesses of your business, letting you know how you can best protect your investment and your livelihood.  Did we mention it is free?


NRS 597.995  Limitations on agreements which include provision requiring arbitration of disputes arising between parties.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, an agreement which includes a provision which requires a person to submit to arbitration any dispute arising between the parties to the agreement must include specific authorization for the provision which indicates that the person has affirmatively agreed to the provision.

      2.  If an agreement includes a provision which requires a person to submit to arbitration any dispute arising between the parties to the agreement and the agreement fails to include the specific authorization required pursuant to subsection 1, the provision is void and unenforceable.

      3.  The provisions of this section do not apply to an agreement that is a collective bargaining agreement. As used in this subsection, “collective bargaining” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 288.033.

      (Added to NRS by 2013, 568)


The following disputable presumptions are available in Nevada court proceedings:

  1. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.
  2. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of that person’s voluntary act.
  3. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
  4. That higher evidence would be adverse from inferior being produced.
  5. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter.
  6. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.
  7. That things which a person possesses are owned by that person.
  8. That a person is the owner of property from exercising acts of ownership over it, or from common reputation of that ownership.
  9. That official duty has been regularly performed.
  10. That a court or judge, acting as such, whether in this State or any other state or country, was acting in the lawful exercise of the court’s or judge’s jurisdiction.
  11. That a judicial record, when not conclusive, does still correctly determine or set forth the rights of the parties.
  12. That a writing is truly dated.
  13. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.
  14. That a person not heard from in 3 years is dead.
  15. That a child born in lawful wedlock is legitimate.
  16. That the law has been obeyed.
  17. That a trustee or other person, whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person, has actually conveyed to that person, when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or a successor in interest.
  18. In situations not governed by the Uniform Commercial Code:


In WPH Architecture, Inc. v. Vegas VP, __ P.3d __, 131 Adv. Op. 88 (Nev. Nov. 5, 2015), the Nevada Supreme Court held that Rule 68 Offers of Judgment, together with statutes allowing offers of judgment in Nevada “are substantive laws that apply to the arbitration proceedings in the current case.”  In this case, the contract between the litigants required arbitration of any disputes pursuant to the American Arbitration Association’s Construction Arbitration Rules, and applying Nevada substantive law.  Prior to arbitration, the claimant made a statutory and Rule 68 offer of judgment.  The respondent rejected the offer of judgment, then lost at arbitration.


In Nevada, the elements for a claim of premises liability (slip and fall, trip and fall, etc.) are:

  1. Defendant is the owner of or in control of premises;
  2. Plaintiff is a permissive user of the premises;
  3. A dangerous condition exists on the premises;
  4. Defendant caused, knew of, or should have known of the alleged dangerous condition; and
  5. The dangerous condition caused Plaintiff to suffer injury and/or other damages.

Rolain v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 14373 (March 26, 2013); Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 291 P. 3d 150 (Nev. 2012) (duty of reasonable care for the safety of persons entering the land extends “to all entrants on the land (except for flagrant trespassers)”, concluding that “landowners bear a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants, regardless of the open and obvious nature of dangerous conditions.”  The Court then went on, stating that the “duty issue must be analyzed with regard to foreseeability and gravity of harm, and the feasibility and availability of alternative conduct that would have prevented the harm.”); Coblentz v. Hotel Emp. & Rest. Empl. Union Welfare Fund, 112 Nev. 1161, 1171-72, 925 P.2d 496, 502 (1996); Rogers v. Tore, Ltd., 85 Nev. 548, 550, 459 P. 2 214, 215 (1969); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm, § 51 (“[A] land possessor owes a duty of reasonable care to entrants on the land with regard to: (a) conduct by the land possessor that creates risks to entrants on the land; (b) artificial conditions on the land that pose risks to entrants on the land; (c) natural conditions on the land that pose risks to entrants on the land; and (d) other risks to entrants on the land when any of the affirmative duties . . . is applicable.”


See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library

Nevada’s Rules Governins Alternative Dispute Resolution defines a Settlement Conference as:

“Settlement conference” is a process whereby, with the approval of the district judge to whom the case is assigned, a district court judge not assigned to the particular case, senior judge, special master, referee or other neutral third person, conducts, in the presence of the parties and their attorneys and person or persons with authority to resolve the matter, a conference for the purpose of facilitating settlement of the case.



Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On Linkedin