Law Commons^™

Las Vegas Review-Journal V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Feb. 27, 2018), Matthew J. Mckissick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the First Amendment does not allow a court to prevent the press from reporting on a redacted autopsy report already released to the public.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Morrow V. Ford, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Is Pena-Rodriguez V. Colorado Just A Drop In The Bucket Or A Catalyst For Improving A Jury System Still Plagued By Racial Bias, And Still Badly In Need Of Repairs, Robert I. Correales

Scholarly Works

Historically, race-based jury bias has maintained the most prominent place in the hierarchy of social ills that have plagued the American Criminal Justice System. Relying on Due Process and Equal Protection principles, the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have chipped away at the problem with mixed results. State Courts have also served as laboratories, providing important lessons on the successes and failures of different approaches, often leading the way with their innovations. A formidable obstacle commonly referred to as a "black box," better known as the no-impeachment rule, has made progress difficult. The no-impeachment rule was designed …

Chevron's Liberty Exception, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s practice in immigration cases reflects an unstated but compelling limitation on Chevron deference. Judicial deference to the executive branch is inappropriate when courts review the legality of a government intrusion on physical liberty. This norm is illustrated by the fact that the Court has not meaningfully applied Chevron deference in cases concerning deportation, and also has seemed reluctant to do so in cases concerning immigration detention. It is a logical extension of the established rule that Chevron deference does not apply to questions of criminal law. By contrast, the Court applies Chevron deference …

Supreme Court Reform: Desirable - And Constitutionally Required, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Game Of Drones: Rolling The Dice With Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Privacy, Rebecca L. Scharf

Scholarly Works

This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones?

The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single …

Eureka County V. Seventh Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 111 (Dec. 28, 2017), Michelle Harnik

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that due process requires junior water rights holders be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in the district court’s consideration of a senior water rights holder’s request to curtail the junior’s water rights.

Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional tort and bad faith claims. Under comity principles, the Franchise Tax Board was entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap that would extend to Nevada businesses under NRS 41.035(1). The Court additionally recognized false light invasion of privacy as a tort cause of action distinct from other privacy torts, and adopted the Restatement’s sliding-scale approach in determining the amount of evidence necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Archon Corp., Vs. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (December 21, 2017), Landon Littlefield

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court denied Archon Corporation’s petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss based on tolling of the statute of limitations. The court declined relief for the following three reasons; the statute-based argument that petitioners made to this court was not considered by the lower court, the court’s clarification of the law would alter the district court’s disposition because the district court made its decision on alternative grounds, and finally, because the district court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Agwara V. State Bar Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 96 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Lucy Crow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court adopted the three-prong test in Grosso v. United States, and held that an attorney cannot assert the privilege against self-incrimination to withhold client trust documentation sought in a State Bar investigation. However, the State Bar must have a compelling reason to force disclosure of tax records.

Doe V. State Ex Rel. Legislature Of The 77th Session, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 7, 2017), Shady Sirsy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) a medical marijuana registry in Nevada does not encroach upon a medical marijuana user’s fundamental right; (2) the registry is rationally related to legitimate state interests beneficial to the public; and (3) the registry does not implicate a registrant’s right against self-incrimination.

Collins V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 22, 2017), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that (1) the district court may constitutionally remove a criminal defendant from the courtroom for disrupting courtroom procedure, (2) a defendant does not have the right to appear at trial in shackles, (3) testimony about a detective’s investigation leading to the defendant’s arrest is not opinion about the defendant’s guilt, (4) the district court may decide not to instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense if no evidence on the record establishes an element of that offense, and (5) a specific cause of death is not required to find that a person’s death was caused by criminal …

In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) requiring a parent to admit guilt to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights violates that parent’s Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) substantial evidence must demonstrate that terminating parental rights is in the best interest of the children when a parent overcomes the presumptions in NRS 128.109(1)-(2).

Ditech Financial, Llc Vs. Buckles, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (September 14, 2017), Landon Littlefield

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an en banc opinion, the Court determined that NRS 200.620 does not apply to telephone recordings made by a party outside of Nevada who uses equipment outside of Nevada to record a conversation with a person in Nevada without that person’s consent.

Paliotta V. State Dep’T Of Corrections, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Sept. 14, 2017), Anna Sichting

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined it must consider the sincere religious beliefs of the individual when evaluating claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). It is improper to evaluate those claims under the centrality test, which attempts to determine if the individual’s beliefs are central to a tenant of the religion in question. Once the sincere belief is shown, the courts must then fully examine the remaining considerations under the Free Exercise Clause and the RLUIPA.

Thomas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 14, 2017), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When a defendant requests and is granted a mistrial, jeopardy will attach if a prosecutor’s conduct is so egregious that it results in prejudice to the defendant that cannot be remedied by anything short of a mistrial.

Malfitano V. County Of Storey, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (June 29, 2017), Brent Resh

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The term “satisfactory”, as used in county code providing for liquor licensing, was not unconstitutionally vague where the provision was not related to any civil or criminal penalty. Additionally, Respondents did not violate Appellant’s due process rights by denying his application for a liquor license because Appellant had no cognizable property interest in or entitlement to the license. Finally, Appellant’s equal protection rights were not violated because Respondents had a rational basis for denying Appellant’s application.

Pimentel V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (June 22, 2017), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the challenge-to-fight theory under NRS 200.450 is not vague and overbroad, (2) all bench conferences must be recorded in criminal trials, (3) self-defense is not available as a defense in a violation of NRS 200.450, and (4) an expert witness cannot impeach defendant’s testimony with statements defendant made during court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.

Bertsch V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, (June 22, 2017), Sydney Campau

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

To sue a court-appointed master who has quasi-judicial immunity, an individual must seek leave of the appointing court. This includes court-appointed forensic accountants who were acting within the scope of their duties.

Nationstar Mortg. V. Sfr Invs. Pool 1, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (June 22, 2017), Elise Conlin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a servicer of a loan that is owned by a regulated entity does have standing to raise claims on behalf of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. If a party argues that federal law preempts state law when a case is properly before the court, then the court has authority to determine that issue.

Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a summary judgment is proper when the opposing party did not file a substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment and (2) a class certification is inappropriate when the plaintiff/appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating “numerosity, commonality, and typicality,” and the ability to “fairly and adequately” represent the class members when an earlier-filed grievance between the union and taxi company resolved the minimum wage back-pay dispute at issue.

In Re D.T., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (May 25, 2017), Karson Bright

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the juvenile court properly certified a juvenile as an adult because the seriousness of his offense and his prior adjudications outweighed the subjective factors in Seven Minors. Additionally, the Court held that a court’s certification of cognitively impaired juveniles for adult proceedings does not offend the Eighth Amendment.

Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Before his interrogation, Tommy Laquade Stewart (“Stewart”) was given LVMPD’s Miranda warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.[1] Stewart then agreed to speak with detectives without an attorney. He was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and robbery. On appeal, Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Miranda warning was legally insufficient. The Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.

[1] 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. Of Nev. V. Gitter, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Apr. 27, 2017)., Scott Cardenas

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that: 1) Nevada’s general slayer statutes apply to the Public Employees’ Retirement Act (“PERS Act”) for purposes of determining a survivor’s benefits, 2) the Public Retirement System (“PERS”) is not exempt from paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 3) the district court had discretion to award up to $1,500 in reasonable costs under NRS 18.005(5) for a nontestifying expert consultant, and 4) the district court’s award of attorney fees under NRS 7.085 and 18.010 was inappropriate and warranted reversal.

Office Of The Attorney General V. Justice Court (Escalante), 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Apr. 6, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 30.130, which concerns the Attorney General’s right to be notified and an opportunity to be heard in constitutional challenges to Nevada statutes, does not apply to criminal proceedings. Instead, NRS 30.130 only refers to a proceeding for declaratory relief, which is treated as a civil action.

Western Cab Co. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, (Mar. 16, 2017), Sydney Campau

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An employer challenged the validity of Nevada’s Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA). The Court held that (1) the MWA is not preempted by the NLRA, (2) the MWA is not preempted by ERISA, and (3) the MWA is not unconstitutionally vague. The Court declined to address factual issues related to the employer’s wage calculations.

Shapiro, Et Al., V. Welt, Et Al., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (February 2, 2017), Stephanie Glantz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss complaint based on anti-SLAPP statutes and the awarding of attorney fees and costs. The Court considered whether parts of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, NRS 41.637, are unconstitutionally vague, whether statements made in relation to a conservatorship action constitute an issue of public interest under NRS 41.637(4), and whether those statements fall within the scope of the absolute litigation privilege. The Court found that no, NRS 41.637 is not unconstitutionally vague; adopted a California test for determining an issue of public interest–and remanded the …

Wittgenstein's Poker: Contested Constitutionalism And The Limits Of Public Meaning Originalism, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

Constitutional originalism is much in the news as our new President fills the Supreme Court vacancy Antonin Scalia's death has created. "Public meaning" originalism is probably the most influential version of originalism in current theoretical circles. This essay argues that, while these "New Originalists" have thoughtfully escaped some of the debilitating criticisms leveled against their predecessors, the result is a profoundly impoverished interpretive methodology that has little to offer most modern constitutional controversies. In particular, the fact that our constitutional practices are contested-that is, we often do not seek semantic or legal agreement-makes particular linguistic indeterminacies highly problematic for approaches …

The Due Process Bona Fides Of Executive Self-Pardons And Blanket Pardons, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Contrary to much commentary and possibly some seemingly settled law, this essay argues that an American President (or a similarly situated state officer or office) may issue individual and "blanket"-or mass-clemency benefiting classes of named or unnamed individuals, and in addition may pardon himself, but only if doing so comports with the principles of fundamental fairness that define due process of law under the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the Constitution permits acts of clemency to foster mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, or to promote the purported best interests of the nation, or even to further an executive's political advantages, …

Deontological Originalism: Moral Truth, Liberty, And, Constitutional Due Process: Part I - Originalism And Deontology, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

This article offers what has been needed but lacking in modern legal commentary: thorough, meticulous and timely proof that, pursuant to principles of Originalism, the Constitution - the highest law of the United States - mandates that any governmental act is unconstitutional if it is immoral.

Specifically, this article returns fundamental constitutional jurisprudence to where it rightly was until roughly a century ago; and, where, recently, it has been returning in the form of Supreme Court substantive due process precedents based on human dignity. The overarching concept, which I call Deontological Originalism, asserts that both the Founders of this Nation …