State of Washington v. Bagley

4 Citing cases

  1. Kahn v. Morse Mowbray

    121 Nev. 464 (Nev. 2005)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that district court's award of attorney fees against appellant pursuant to NRS 18.010 was premature and an abuse of discretion because appellant's claims were not barred by issue preclusion

    We have considered the Kahns' contention that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are inadequate, and we conclude that the Kahns waived this issue by failing to raise it. Therefore, we conclude that this issue was not properly raised on appeal. State of Washington v. Bagley, 114 Nev. 788, 792, 963 P.2d 498, 501 (1998). Moreover, even if the issue was properly raised on appeal, we conclude that the Kahns' arguments are unpersuasive because they failed to demonstrate that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous or not supported by ample evidence in the record.

  2. Edgington v. Edgington

    119 Nev. 577 (Nev. 2003)   Cited 49 times
    Recognizing that, unless contrary to legislative intent, state statutes substantially similar to previously enacted federal statutes should be construed in the same manner

    Nor did Janice argue in the district court that a parent must be compelled to furnish financial information or other documents under NRS 125B.080(3). Thus, Janice has waived this issue on appeal. See State of Washington v. Bagley, 114 Nev. 788, 792, 963 P.2d 498, 501 (1998) (providing that parties cannot raise issues for the first time on appeal). Janice also raises for the first time on appeal an argument that Donald is willfully underemployed.

  3. Hampe v. Foote

    118 Nev. 405 (Nev. 2002)   Cited 28 times

    Not having raised this issue in the court below, the assignment of error on appeal is waived. See State of Washington v. Bagley, 114 Nev. 788, 792, 963 P.2d 498, 501 (1998) (parties cannot raise issues for the first time on appeal); accord Laird v. State of Nev. Pub. Emp. Ret. Bd., 98 Nev. 42, 46, 639 P.2d 1171, 1173 (1982). We note, however, that the letter of complaint did stimulate a quasi-judicial proceeding before the Gaming Commission.

  4. Johns v. Johns

    No. W2013-01102-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    The Supreme Court of Nevada refused to consider the applicability of 28 U.S.C. ยง 1738B(h) to a matter when the appellant failed to raise the issue before the trial court. State of Washington v. Bagley, 114 Nev. 788, 792, 963 P.2d 498, 501 (Nev. 1998). However, two justices dissented, criticizing the majority for failing to address the issue because the federal Act was "clearly applicable" and the trial court had "committed plain error by failing to apply the Act," therefore, according to the dissent, the Court should have considered the issue even if not raised below.