Nevada Law Journal

The Nevada Law Journal is published by students of the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The NLJ is a journal of legal scholarship dedicated to analyzing the law and policy implications of significant case law, legislation, administrative regulations and important legal events. The NLJ publishes at least three issues per year and includes submissions by legal practitioners, professors, and students of the William S. Boyd School of Law. Additionally, topics concerning legal symposia, surveys, and tributes to important figures of the law are included.

Current Issue

Volume 26, Issue 3 (2026)View issue

Current Articles

Most Popular Articles

  • Article
    1 March 2016

    Fraud on the Court and Abusive Discovery

    David Hague
    Unbeknownst to many, federal courts have the power under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside judgments entered years earlier that were obtained by “fraud on the court.” Fraud on the court, however, can take many forms and courts and commentators agree that it is a nebulous concept. The power to set aside a judgment requires courts to strike a balance between the principles of justice and finality. A majority of courts require a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, of intentional fraudulent conduct specifically directed at the court itself. This standard is flawed. And courts that have adopted it are abdicating their solemn responsibility as the gatekeeper to justice because innocent victims seeking to set aside judgments obtained by abusive discovery find themselves as a square-peg trying to fit into a round hole. The remedial and equitable nature of the fraud-on-the-court doctrine and the great public policy that it embodies militates against making that burden an impossible hurdle for victims of abusive discovery. This Article suggests that courts depart from the heightened standard used to set aside judgments, particularly judgments obtained by abusive discovery. Specifically, this Article advances a four-step process to resolve the ultimate inquiry: whether the abusive conduct caused the court not to perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases. Under this standard, courts will more readily find that abusive discovery that undermines the integrity of the judicial process or influences the decision of the court constitutes a fraud on the court.
    Read More
  • Article
    1 June 2012

    Stare Decisis in the Inferior Courts of the United States

    Joseph Mead
    While circuit courts are bound to follow circuit precedent under “law of the circuit” the practice among federal district courts is more varied and uncertain, routinely involving little or no deference to their own precedent. I argue that the different hierarchical levels and institutional characteristics do not account for the differences in practices between circuit and district courts. Rather, district courts can and should adopt a “law of the district” similar to that of circuit courts. Through this narrow proposal, I explore the historical stare decisis practices in federal courts that are not Supreme.
    Read More