- Quickdraw McLaw
- 10 Comments
- 230 Views
- CCSD Board authorizes employee Covid vaccine mandate. [TNI]
- The new Texas abortion law could mean more Texans seeking them here. [TNI]
- District Court Judge awards nearly $170,000 to pay lawyers in GOP tax case. [Nevada Appeal]
- Nevada leads the nation in risk for mortgage fraud. [Nevada Current]
- New lawsuit alleges Nevada troopers took $87,000 from a retired marine during a traffic stop. [RJ]
- Park rangers ban inflatable pool toys at Lake Mead. [8NewsNow]
Civil forfeiture is such a racket. Wasn't there a case a few years ago where they got bench slapped for turning I-80 into a forfeiture corridor where they just sat on the side of the road and seized assets all day? Total scum. Try as I might, I just can't give cops the benefit of the doubt. They're as scummy, if not more so, than the criminals they're supposed to protect us from.
Yes they got slapped around. Now, instead of doing it themselves, they partner with the DEA and the DEA takes the funds and ultimately pays over the majority of it over to the police department because it's harder to sue the DEA than it is the local police department.
Reminds me of the incestuous relationship NSB has with biglaw where if they find for client in fee dispute they assign to biglaw firm to collect when they largely staff the Bar. Yrs. I understand no fees but other benefits accrue to them.
Yes, 1:36. It's totes the same thing.
What are people's thoughts on a) if third party complaints in state court are limited to claims for contribution and indemnification or can include other claims like torts or fraud and b) if contribution and indemnification claims are premature if brought before the entrance of a judgment? Anyone had any luck on bringing or defeating a motion to dismiss on those issues?
They are not premature claims, but they are limited to indemnity and contribution. Look at the case of Ben Lund v 8th Judicial. It breaks down this whole scenario.
TPCs are limited to contribution and indemnification claims, and there are some cases saying the indemnification claim is premature before judgment. Check out Rodriquez, 125 Nev. 578 (2009); Valley Health, 2011 WL 285057 (Nev. Jan. 25, 2011); Avery, 2014 WL 852493 (D. Nev. Mar. 4, 2014); Winnemucca Farms, 2008 WL 8943375 (D. Nev. May 14, 2008); Ditech, 2017 WL 3090265 (D. Nev. July 20, 2017); Hillcrest, 2016 WL 1610604 (D. Nev. Apr. 20, 2016).
The caselaw is clear that claims for indemnification and contribution don't accrue until entry of a judgment, but that's not to say they're premature and should be dismissed if brought beforehand. The NRCP (and FRCP) allow for the assertion of third-party claims in the underlying case because even though they haven't accrued, they're essentially ripe for adjudication along with the primary claims, as the issues are so intertwined with those claims. See Pack v. LaTourette, 128 Nev. 264, and Hecht v. Summerlin Life & Health Ins. Co., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1236. Courts (including in some of those unpublished cases cited above) are often very loose in labeling claims as unripe when they really mean the claims haven't accrued for SoL purposes. They're technically two different inquiries.
Just when I thought this blog couldn't get any dumber…
@5:20 please descend from on high and grace us with your wisdom and citations