declining to address the continuing violation doctrine because plaintiff did not allege a plausible claim
Summary of this case from Nickler v. Clark Cnty.No. 71880
09-19-2017
Michael J. MCCORMICK, Appellant, v. Connie BISBEE, Chairman; Nevada State Board of Parole Commissioners; James G. Cox, Director; and the State of Nevada Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Michael McCormick Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Dep't of Public Safety/Carson City
AFFIRMED.
declining to address the continuing violation doctrine because plaintiff did not allege a plausible claim
Summary of this case from Nickler v. Clark Cnty.Full title:Michael J. MCCORMICK, Appellant, v. Connie BISBEE, Chairman; Nevada State…
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada.
Date published: Sep 19, 2017
Indeed, the Nevada Supreme Court has regularly avoided addressing the issue, even when litigants before the…
Drye v. Glatfelter Claims Mgmt.But Plaintiffs cite to no case, and this Court has found no case where the Nevada Supreme Court applied this…