Document Type
Case Summary
Publication Date
Winter 12-31-2015
Case Synopsis
Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district court barring petitioners, Dr. Piroozi and Dr. Blahnik, from arguing comparative fault of settled defendants at trial and including those defendants’ names on the verdict forms. In granting the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Nevada resolved a conflict between NRS 41.141(3) and NRS 41A.045, holding that NRS 41A.045 preempts NRS 41.141(3) and entitles a defendant to argue the percentage of fault of settled defendants at trial and to include the settled defendant’s names on the jury verdict form.
Recommended Citation
Folkestad, Jessie, "Piroozi v. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015)" (2015). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 935.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvscs/935