Digital Commons Network^™

Mariscal-Ochoa V. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Jun. 27, 2024), Alisha Meschkow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

During voir dire, a prospective juror stated unclearly and quietly that she thought she recognized the defendant, Mariscal-Ochoa, as her nephew’s sexual abuser. She was struck for cause over Mariscal-Ochoa’s objections to strike the entire venire, and the lower court gave a curative instruction reiterating the presumption of innocence and clarifying the jurors’ role in disregarding uncharged acts. Mariscal-Ochoa was convicted for sexually abusing his nine-year-old stepdaughter after testifying. The Court affirmed, holding that the trial court was in the best position to determine whether prejudice was incurable during voir dire.

Redevelopment Agency Of The City Of Sparks V. Nevada Labor Commissioner, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 27, 2024), Alyson Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Considering the language of NRS §279.500(2)(c), the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether non-cash consideration, rather than money up front, created a financial incentive that would require the payment of prevailing wages on a development project. In this case, the City of Sparks and the Sparks Redevelopment Agency (“RDA”) conveyed property to a developer in exchange for the maintenance of public parking on the property for fifty years. The Court stated that this future compensation did not create a financial incentive, and therefore, NRS 279.500(2)(c) was not invoked. Subsequently, the developer was not required to pay prevailing wages on the project.

Palmer (Christopher) V. State Of Nevada, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (Jun. 27, 2024), Matthew Malters

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that the District Court violated Christopher Deangelo Palmer’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by excluding his entire family from the courtroom during the complaining witness’s testimony without satisfying the four-factor test established in Waller v. Georgia. The Court found that the reasons provided for the partial closure, such as maintaining courtroom control, the misbehavior of Palmer’s brother, and Palmer’s recorded jail calls, did not constitute substantial reasons for the closure of the court. The District Court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to the closure and did not make sufficient findings to support …

Limprasert V. Pam Specialty Hosp. Of Las Vegas, Llc, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 27, 2024), Keegan Davis

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 41A dictates Nevada’s statutory scheme for professional negligence, or “medical malpractice” claims. Over the past decade, the Nevada Supreme Court’s professional negligence jurisprudence has maintained a generally textualist approach to NRS 41A’s mechanical workings. That changed four years ago with the Court’s decision in Estate of Curtis v. S. Las Vegas Medical Investors, LLC, 136 Nev. 350, 466 P.3d 1263 (2020) and the creation of a “common knowledge” exception negating the need for medical affidavits under NRS 41A.071. Absent common knowledge, or the statute’s other exceptions found in NRS 41A.100, a professional negligence complaint must be paired with …

Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. V. Sfr Invs. Pool 1, Llc, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Jun. 27, 2024), Toree Robinson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a homeowner’s partial payments failed to satisfy the superpriority lien, meaning that the subsequent HOA foreclosure extinguished the first deed of trust. The Court examined the parameters set forth in Cranesbill which provided for allocation of a defaulting homeowner’s partial payments to an HOA superpriority lien. Court’s applying Cranesbill must: (1) look for direction of the homeowner allocating payment at the time payment was made, (2) then, if the homeowner fails to provide direction, a court must determine if the HOA allocated the payment prior to the dispute over the allocation, and (3) …

B.S. V. Dist. Ct. (Simek), 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (Jun. 27, 2024), Makai Zuniga

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case pertains to an emergency original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court ruling that denied a petition for temporary guardianship over a minor child. The lower court relied on NRS 159A.052 which provides for temporary guardianships of minors who need immediate medical attention when justifying its denial. However, the Supreme Court held that the lower court failed to consider NRS 159A.053, which provides for temporary guardianships of minors for other good cause. Thus, the lower court manifestly abused its discretion, and the Supreme Court granted the petition.

Dignity Health V. Dist. Ct. (Gohari) [State Of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (June. 20, 2024), Laura Lomeli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Pursuant to NRS 41A.097(5) a parent or guardian can file a claim for a child’s brain damage or birth defect until the child’s 10th birthday. In some cases, emergency directives issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, tolled those limitations period beyond a child’s 10^th birthday. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the respondent’s complaint, which was filed 72 days after Gohari’s 10th birthday was timely. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the directives' tolling provision did not apply, affirming the district court's interpretation.

In The Matter Of J.B V. Eighth Jud. Dist., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 12, 2024), Aaron Kempf

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court clarified that blood relatives alone are not the only persons considered for child placement. In 2021, NRS 432B.0657 was introduced to expand statutory placement preference to include fictive kin, persons who are not related to the child by blood but have “a significant emotional and positive relationship with the child.” The Court explained that “fictive kin” requires evaluating the relationship from the perspective of both the child and the adult, emphasizing that blood relatives do not have legal placement preference over fictive kin.” Further, the Court stressed that “placement decisions must be based on a child’s …

In Re: Petition Of Katherine Anne P.., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 6, 2024), Ashley Burt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from a district court order that set aside an adoption decree. The Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion and reversed the order.

In Re: Application For Change Of Name (Lowry), 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 6, 2024), Megan Cunnington

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Any incarcerated person can change their name, even if they were convicted of an offense that precludes their record from being sealed. The name change statute unambiguously accounts for an applicant’s criminal record. The criminal record follows them to their new name, so they cannot circumvent record-sealing requirements. The district court also reasoned that public policy precluded the petitioner from changing his name because he committed a sexual offense against a minor. The Court did not address the district court’s public policy findings.

In Re: Parametric Sound Corp. Shareholders’ Litigation, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (Jun. 6, 2024), Hannah Bleak

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court finds that PAMTP’s claims are not direct because stock dilution is exclusively derivative and their control was not shifted from a group of investors to a single controlling stockholder and PAMTP consists only of former stockholders so they cannot bring derivative claims. Thus, the Court affirms the district court granting judgment pursuant to NRCP 52(c). Next, the Court finds it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to award pre-litigation costs because PAMTP intended to forgo benefits of the settlement. Finally, the Court reverses the Court reverses the district court’s order denying respondents’ request for attorney …

Harris (Barry) V. Warden, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May. 30, 2024), Hannah Bleak

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Petitioners have a statutory right to be present for an evidentiary hearing. They may waive this right, but it must be clear in the record that the petitioner personally waived the right. An evidentiary hearing without the petitioner’s presence will be reviewed for harmless error.

Capital Advisors, Llc Vs. Cai, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (May 23, 2024), Ashley Burt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court consolidated appeals from district court orders granting a motion for summary judgement on a case involving the liability of officers and directors of a parent company who allegedly had knowledge of actions adverse to the parent company conducted by a wholly owned subsidiary. The court affirmed the decision of the district court in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Jesse Calvin Gilbert V. State Of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (May 9, 2024), Ciara Clark

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An investigatory motive does not invalidate an inventory search if the search would have occurred in the same manner absent the motive, and the circumstances were not fabricated as a pretext. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, finding the inventory search reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Jones V. Ghadiri, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 28, 2024), Matthew Malters

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case establishes an important distinction between adverse possession and prescriptive easements in Nevada. Adverse possession requires hostile, actual, peaceable, open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for five years, plus the payment of any relevant taxes. A prescriptive easement, on the other hand, only requires adverse, continuous, open, and peaceable use for five years, without any tax payments. The Court rejected the Joneses’ attempt to claim a comprehensive prescriptive easement that would grant them exclusive control over a 591-square-foot area that was owned by Ghadiri. The Court’s analysis hinged on the fact that comprehensive prescriptive easements blur the line between …

Boman V. Elkanich, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Apr. 25, 2024), Megan Cunnington

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined when a patient is on inquiry notice as to their legal injury and if the patient’s degree of diligence is diminished while undergoing treatment from the negligent physician. A patient discovers their injury when they recognize the damage suffered and understand the health care provider negligent cause their injury. It found that a patient has a reduced degree of diligence to discover the harm while under the physician’s care, particularly if the physician reassures the patient that they will improve. This left genuine, factual disputes as to when Appellant should have known of the Defendant’s …

B.Y. And A.F. V. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Apr. 25, 2024), Cadence Ciesielski

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In a per curium opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court found an abuse of discretion in the lower court’s denial of an ex parte temporary guardianship petition. The considerations outlined in NRS 159A were not met, therefore, the lower court improperly denied the petition. NRS 159A.053(4) presumes that petitions for guardianship are in the best interest of the child under certain conditions. This presumption is rebuttable at any time, but an ex parte motion need not be denied merely because an opponent cannot rebut it before a decision is rendered. Further, NRS 159A.053(3) requires that an affidavit describing the emergency supports …

Ene V. Graham, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 18, 2024), Alisha Meschkow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that (1) only issues expressly or impliedly tried by either party should be discussed at trial; and (2) alter ego liability analyses apply the same to both LLCs and corporations. The Court found that the legislature intended for corporate veil piercing statutes and alter ego exceptions to apply similarly to both corporations and LLCs. Although both courts agreed that Ene influenced and governed International Property Holdings, LLC (IPH), the Court held that (1) Graham failed to establish a causal connection between her injuries and Ene’s personal use of the property, and (2) the lower court’s …

Nevadans For Reprod. Freedom Vs. Washington (Ballot Issue) [State Of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (Apr. 18, 2024), Laura Lomeli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Constitution gives the people the authority to place an initiative on the ballot to make law directly by proposing legislation and constitutional amendments. Initiative petitions that comply with Nevada's single-subject requirement, provide a legally sufficient description of its effect, and include a revenue source if it requires state expenditure of funds meets the requirements need to place the initiative on the ballot. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision to block the initiative from being placed in the 2024 ballot.

Sisolak V. Polymer 80, Inc., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 30, 546 P.3d 819 (Apr. 18, 2024), Keegan Davis

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In 2021, the Nevada Legislature promulgated, and Governor Sisolak signed into law, NRS 202.253(9), NRS 202.3625, and NRS 202.363 as an extension to the federal Gun Control Act (“GCA”). The statute criminalizes the sale or transfer of unfinished firearms lacking serial numbers, known as “ghost guns.” Respondent, Polymer80, Inc., is a Nevada company whose primary business is the sale of unfinished firearm components. Respondent sued Governor Sisolak and other named defendants claiming that the new ghost gun statute was vague and therefore unconstitutional. The district court agreed with Polymer80, granted summary judgment, and declared the statute unconstitutional. Appellants appealed to …

In Re: D.C., Jr., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (Apr. 18, 2024), Alyson Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In order for a juvenile defendant to be found competent to proceed to a certification hearing, courts must consider the full context of the juvenile’s case and the juvenile must understand what the stakes are should if they are certified for proceedings in adult criminal court. Such a finding of competency must be supported by substantial evidence.

On appeal from a district court order certifying a juvenile for criminal proceedings as an adult, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the juvenile court applied an appropriate standard to determine the juvenile’s competence, and whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence. …

City Of Las Vegas V. 180 Land Co., Llc, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 18, 2024), Aaron Kempf

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the appeals by both parties in the instant matter. The City of Las Vegas (“the City”) challenged the district court’s finding that a taking occurred, the just compensation award, and the other monetary awards made to 180 Land Co., LLC (“180 Land”). 180 Land challenged the district court’s determination of prejudgment interest awarded to them. In its opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed whether the land R-PD7 residential zoning or its PR-OS land designation governed 180 Land’s ability to develop the property. The court reviewed the district court’s adoption of 180 Land’s expert witness’ determination …

Posner V. U.S. Bank Nat’L. Ass’N, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (Apr. 4, 2024), Sydney Jung

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 106.240 provides that a lien from a mortgage or deed of trust on real property is presumed discharged after 10 years following either debt secured, or any recorded written extension becomes wholly due. The Court further specified that judicial foreclosure proceedings do not trigger the 10-year time frame.

Ortiz (Ramel) Vs. State [State Of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 04, 2024), Makai Zuniga

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This opinion regards Ramel Ortiz, who was convicted of sexual assault, after he broke into the victim’s home and forced them to engage in multiple sexual acts. Four of these sexual assault counts resulted from an incident where Ortiz subjected the victim to intercourse in different sexual positions. Nevada caselaw provides that a change in position alone is insufficient to show that the resulting sexual acts constitute more than one sexual assault offense. However, Ortiz’s counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the multiple sexual assault convictions. Further, Ortiz filed a postconviction writ of habeas corpus with …

Morrison V. State Of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (Apr. 4, 2024), Toree Robinson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Kwame De-Markquise Morrison raised five issues after a jury found him guilty of three counts of sexual assault upon a minor under the age of 14 years and one count of use of a minor under the age of 14 to produce pornography. Morrison contended that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that lack of knowledge, or mistake of fact as to the victim’s age, is not a defense to the charge of use of a minor in producing pornography, NRS 200.710(1). Second, Morrison alleged that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to …

Smith V. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 28, 2024), Makai Zuniga

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case raised several issues regarding the scope of a valid search warrant. Under Nevada law, an affidavit may be incorporated into a warrant to establish probable cause, but that affidavit cannot expand the scope of the search and seizure permitted under the warrant’s specific language. Absent an exception, officers only have a right to follow the specific instructions listed on a warrant. Further, exigent circumstances can allow police to warrantlessly seize a cell phone, but they cannot search the data on the phone unless a new warrant is obtained, or demanding circumstances independently justify the search of the data. …

In Re I.S. V. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Mar. 28, 2024), Javiera Sothers

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada determined that 62C.230’s incorporation of NRS 62C.200(1)(b)’s prosecutorial-consent requirement does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because (1) the juvenile court’s authority is solely statutorily derived and (2) dismissal and referral of a juvenile for informal supervision under NRS 62C.230 does not constitute an exercise of the juvenile court’s sentencing discretion. Moreover, the Court determined that I.S.’s appeal here was not moot because there is a presumption of collateral consequences under a juvenile delinquency adjudication until the juvenile reaches age 18 and/or their juvenile record is sealed.

Judd V. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 14, 2024), Ashley Burt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 207.190(2), criminal coercion is punishable as a felony if it is carried out using physical force or the immediate threat of physical force. However, absent the use of immediate threat of physical force, coercion is punishable as a misdemeanor. Here, the court determined that the phrase “physical force” in NRS 207.190(2) should be limited to physical force against an individual and not merely against property.

Kabew V. The Eight Judicial Dist. Ct, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 28, 2024), Hannah Bleak

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The statutory provisions in NRS 176A.240(6)(a) are mandatory. So long as the provisions are met, a district court must set aside the judgement of conviction.

Draskovich V. Draskovich, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. (Mar. 21, 2024), Evan Sommer

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In this divorce case, the Court addressed the characterization of the Draskovich Law Group (DLG) and the issue of alimony, establishing legal principles for determining the status of businesses incorporated during a marriage. The Court ruled that a business established by one spouse prior to the marriage and incorporated under a different name during the marriage retains its character as the separate property of that spouse, despite incorporation. The incorporation of DLG did not alter its essential nature as a continuation of Robert Draskovich’s pre-marriage legal practice, thus not invoking the presumption of community property. However, the Court also recognized …