 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barrett v. Baird12/19/1995
tute's attorney fees provision violates due process because the trial court has no discretion to deny an award of fees where such an award would be unjust. The case amici cite in support of this claim involved a statute containing a specific "substantial injustice" provision. Arbuckle v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 478 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1984). NRS 41A.056, like many other fee-shifting provisions, only requires an award of fees that the court determines reasonable. Generally, the court will set an award only after the parties have had a full opportunity to debate the merits and amount of the award. This is precisely what occurred here. Thus, we conclude that the attorney fees provision is in complete compliance with the requirements of due process.
21 The screening panel statute even provides for several peremptory challenges of potential panel members and an unlimited number of challenges for cause. NRS 41A.043.
22 While we believe Dr. Brown's counsel's characterization that he wanted to illustrate to the jury "that words can be a matter of interpretation," what disturbs this court is that the switching of photographs was done in a conniving manner.
23 Evidence of a test or a demonstration is not admissible unless the proponent makes a foundational showing of substantial similarity between the demonstration conducted and the actual conditions that existed at the time of the injury . Way v. Hayes, 89 Nev. 375, 377, 513 P.2d 1222, 1223 (1973). Counsel did not satisfy these requirements.
|