Digital Commons Network^™

Chappell V. State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 30, 2021), Kalin Olson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an opinion drafted by Justice Cadish, the Nevada Supreme Court considered a case in which several mandatory procedural bars apply to postconviction habeas petitions under NRS Chapter 34. A petitioner must demonstrate good cause and prejudice in order to overcome the mandatory procedural bars and avoid dismissal of a postconviction habeas petition. A claim of good cause must be raised by the petitioner within a reasonable time after it becomes available. The Court concludes that the ineffective assistance claims lack merit and affirmed the district court order dismissing Chappell's third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus as …

Daniel Lakes V. U.S. Bank Trust, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Dec. 30, 2021), Jessica Recarey-Valenzuela

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No issue of material fact exists in this case because the undisputed evidence confirms that the first deed-of-trust beneficiary protected its interest in the property when it tendered the superpriority part of the Home Owners’ Association’s lien prior to the foreclosure sale. The Court was not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the respondent cannot enforce its first-priority interest since the appellant recorded his grant, bargain, and sale deed prior to the respondent recorded its assignment as first deed-of-trust beneficiary. The appellant bought interest in property subject to the first deed-of trust lien that was recorded years before his purchase. …

Lyft, Inc. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Dec. 30, 2021), Alyssa Rogan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Lyft challenged the district court’s decision overruling their objection to the discovery commissioner’s recommendation that medical examinations during civil discovery are governed under NRS 52.380, not the Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure (NRCP) 35. NRS 52.380 was created after the Court amended NRCP 35. Lyft requested a writ of mandamus requesting this Court to instruct the district court to vacate its order that NRS 52.380 controls the process. This Court finds that NRS 52.380 is unconstitutional as it conflicts with NRCP 35. The Court granted the petition to vacate the decision and requests the lower court to review the motions …

Platte River Ins. Co. V. Jackson, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Dec. 23, 2021), Caitlan Mcmasters

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a judgment debtor can claim a “wildcard exemption” from execution under NRS 21.090(1)(z) to protect earnings not already exempted by NRS 21.090(1)(g). The Court noted that the phrase “not otherwise exempted” applied to personal property, including earnings, that were not wholly exempt under NRS 21.090. Therefore, the Court affirmed the holding of the district court that the wildcard exemption can be used to protect any personal property, including enumerated property, that is not fully exempted by another subsection.

Las Vegas Review-Journal V. City Of Henderson, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. (Dec. 23, 2021), Kaitlin Mccormick-Huhn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

District courts must apply the catalyst theory to determine whether a party prevails in litigation related to public records. A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider all five factors under Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department v. Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc., 136 Nev. 122, 460 P.3d 952 (2020) (“CIR” factors). Courts must make proper findings for each of the five factors and balance the factors to determine whether a party prevailed.

Parsons V. Colt’S Manufacturing Company, Llc (Nrap 5), 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Dec. 2, 2021), Alix Goldstein

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Montanez V. Sparks Family Hosp., Inc. 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Dec. 9, 2021), Anne-Greyson Long

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Christian Stephon Miles V. The State Of Nevada, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 23, 2021), Molly Marias

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

City Of Henderson V. Wolfgram, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (December 23, 2021), Servando Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Spirtos Vs. Yemenidjian, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Dec. 02,2021), Michael Goutsaliouk

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Oella Ridge Tr. V. Silver State Schs. Credit Union, A Nev. Corp., Courtney Sinagra

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Debiparshad, M.D. V. Dist. Ct. (Landess), 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Dec. 2, 2021), Katelyn Golder

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Ramos (Gustavo) V. State, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. (Dec. 9, 2021), Samuel Holt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Petsmart, Inc. V. Dist. Ct. (Todd), 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Dec. 9, 2021), Brenna Irving

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Aerogrow Int’L Inc. V. Radoff, 137 Nev. Op. 76 (Dec. 9, 2021), Valarie Kuschel

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Panorama Towers Condo. Unit Owners’ Ass’N V. Hallier, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Nov. 10, 2021), Nazo Demirdjian

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When NRS 11.202(1) was amended, it changed the statute of repose from six years to ten years. The amendment specifically intended to be applied retroactively, rather than the usual prospective application. The Supreme Court reversed, saying the District Court erred when it denied an altered motion from Panorama Towers Condominium Unit Owners’ Association against the builders for defects. The amendment’s change from six to ten years for the statute of repose meant the nine-year-old settlement fell within the new time period and summary judgment as a result of time was inappropriate.

Wilson V. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep’T, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Nov. 18, 2021), Tali Frey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Chaparro (Osbaldo) V. State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op 68 (Nov. 10, 2021), Jaden Braunagel

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Capriati Construction Corp., Inc. V. Yahyavi, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Nov. 10, 2021), Robert J. Lemus

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Harrison V Ramparts, Inc., 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Oct. 28, 2021), Anna Dreibelbis

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This is an appeal from a personal injury matter that resulted in a post-judgment district court order that awarded attorney fees and costs, and directed that the award payment come from settlement funds of the codefendant. The appeal was originally resolved in an unpublished order, but the appellant filed a motion to publish the order as an opinion, and the Nevada Court of Appeals granted the motion. The district court ordered that the award would come from settlement funds of codefendant Desert Medical Equipment and that they would be obligated to pay Harrison based on their settlement agreement. However, the …

Senjab V. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (October 21, 2021), Colleen C. Freedman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an opinion drafted by Justice Parraguirre, the Nevada Supreme Court re-evaluated its long holding of the definition of “residence” under Nevada’s divorce statute, NRS 125.020, requiring both physical presence in Nevada (residence) and intent to remain in Nevada. This cas is an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of a divorce complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to absence of domicile. The Supreme Court further reviewed its long holding that residence is “synonymous with domicile” for divorce jurisdiction and found its prior rulings were unsound for several reasons. First, NRS 125.020(2) simply and separately addresses “domicile[ ]” in …

Aparicio V. Nevada, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Oct. 7, 2021), Kaleb Bailey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The definition of “victim” under Article 1, Section 8A of the Nevada Constitution (a.k.a. Marsy’s Law) and NRS 176.015 is “harmonious, if not identical.” Though Section 8A may include individuals NRS 176.015 does not, and vice versa, neither include anyone and everyone impacted by a crime as the district court held below.

Flor Morency Et. Al. V. State, Dep’T Of Edu., 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Oct. 7, 2021), Kassandra Acosta

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether Assembly Bill (A.B.) 458 was constitutional and subject to the supermajority voting requirement. Article 4, §18(2) of the Nevada Constitution states that under the supermajority voting provision, at least two-thirds of the members’ votes in each house of the Nevada Legislature are required to pass any bill “which creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form.” Appellants argued that the bill was unconstitutional because it was passed even though it failed to meet the supermajority voting requirement. The Court found that Appellants had standing to challenge the legislation constitutionality and the bill …

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. V. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Oct. 28, 2021), Jay Brunner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Martinez Guzman (Wilber) V. Dist. Ct. (State), 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Sep. 30, 2021)., Alyssa Williams

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Martinez Guzman was indicted by a grand jury for five burglaries and four murders occurring in two counties. In Martinez Guzman I, the Nevada Supreme Court vacated an order denying dismissal for improper jurisdiction and remanded for reconsideration. There, the court held that territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the necessary statutory connections to the location of the court exist. Here, the court again granted a writ of mandamus for Martinez Guzman. Because the court concluded the nexus between acts committed in one county were not sufficiently connected to offenses occurring in another, it considered the district court’s venue determination …

Byrd V. Byrd, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Nev. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2021)., Winnie Wu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

After her ex-husband, Grady Byrd, suddenly stopped making payments pursuant to their 2014 divorce decree, Caterina Byrd moved the district court to enforce same. During the proceedings, Grady revealed that he had waived his military retirement pay in exchange for veterans’ disability benefits, and therefore Caterina was entitled to significantly less money than she had originally anticipated. Caterina moved the district court for NRCP 60(b)(6) relief, arguing that she would not have agreed to certain terms in the marital settlement agreement had she known Grady would waive his military retirement pay. The district court ordered an evidentiary hearing, and Grady’s …

Salloum V. Boyd Gaming Corp., 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sep. 23, 2021)., Terra Shepard

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an employment discrimination case. Boyd Gaming Corporation (“Boyd”) terminated Salloum’s employment. The limitation period for an employment discrimination claim expired 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action. In 2019, the legislature amended NRS 613.430 to extend the limitation period, and Salloum subsequently filed a claim. Boyd filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Salloum’s claims expired under the previous version of the statute and the amended statute did not apply. The lower court agreed with Boyd and dismissed the claim. The lower court also found that equitable tolling did not …

Dekker/Perich/ Sabatini Ltd. Et. Al. V. Dist. Court & City Of N. Las Vegas, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Sep. 23, 2021) ., Jessica Recarey-Valenzuela

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In this case, the City of North Las Vegas’s complaint against the Appellee was not time-barred, did not violate the Appellee’s due process rights, and was not void ab initio. Therefore, the Court denied the Appellee’s petition for writ relief.

The 2019 amendment of NRS 11.202 extending the repose period from six-years to ten years applies retroactively to actions where substantial completion of the construction project occurred before October 1, 2019. The Legislature intended for the amendment to apply retroactively because the six-year repose period prejudiced Nevadans pursuing construction defect claims.

Nuveda, Llc V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Sept. 23, 2021)., Alyssa Rogan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NuVeda challenged the district court’s decision to deny the motion to transfer the contempt hearing to another judge under NRS 22.030(3). NRS 22.030(3) is a peremptory challenge that allows accused contemnors the right to request a new judge if they request it in a timely and prompt manner. NuVeda requested a petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus. The Court found the district court did not err when they denied NuVeda's motion. The court emphasized that a party may waive its right to move for a new judge if they fail to make the request in a reasonably prompt manner. …

In Re: Discipline Of Christopher R. Arabia, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Sep. 23, 2021)., Sarah Voehl

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an opinion drafted by Justice Herndon, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether attorneys who hold public office are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction, boards, and hearing panels created by the Supreme Court Rules. The respondent, attorney Christopher R. Arabia, argued he should be exempted from the rule because (1) he is entitled to qualified immunity, or (2) he is only subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Ethics for his misconduct while he holds public office. The Court rejected both arguments and held that an attorney who engages in professional misconduct while in public office is subject to …