Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 21 of 21
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Re B.J.W.-A., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 12, 2023), Mackenzie Sullivan
In Re B.J.W.-A., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 12, 2023), Mackenzie Sullivan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the exception to the category A felony designation for lewdness with a child under NRS 201.230, and considered whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in certifying the appellant to stand trial as an adult. B.J. appealed the juvenile court decision to not accept jurisdiction and to certify B.J. as an adult for criminal proceedings. The Court found that the Legislature did not create a mandatory rule in NRS 201.230(5) requiring that all minors charged with lewdness with a child be adjudicated only in juvenile court. The Court also concluded that the juvenile court …
Tahican, Llc V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Feb. 2, 2023), Josette Vanderlaan
Tahican, Llc V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Feb. 2, 2023), Josette Vanderlaan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRS 14.010(1), a party may record a lis pendens “[i]n an action . . . affecting the title or possession of real property.” A claim of fraudulent transfer of real property seeking avoidance of the transfer supports a lis pendens because the relief sought affects the title or possession of the real property. The recording party does not need to be entitled to title or possession of the property to support a lis pendens.
Taylor V. Brill, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Dec. 15, 2022), Jefferson Cummings
Taylor V. Brill, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Dec. 15, 2022), Jefferson Cummings
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Judges are required to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might be questioned, such as if they have previously presided as judge over the matter in another court. A judge is said to preside over a matter when they have exercised some control or authority over the matter, not when they have had purely administrative contact.
Washoe Cty. Human Servs. V. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Dec. 29, 2022), Rachel Blum
Washoe Cty. Human Servs. V. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Dec. 29, 2022), Rachel Blum
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court considered this writ of mandamus as it held substantial precedential value and was a matter of first impression. Although the controversy was moot, they decided to hear the issue, as the duration of the challenges action is relatively short and a similar issue is likely to arise in the future. Further, the Court found the matter to be important, because the issue related to the protection of Nevada children. The Court held that NRS 432B.393(3)(c) is constitutional, as it does not infringe on the due process rights of parents concerning the altering or termination of custody …
Arce V. Sanchez, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 22, 2022), Joe Coronel
Arce V. Sanchez, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 22, 2022), Joe Coronel
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Judge Stiglich issued the opinion. The issue was of first impression and asked if under NRCP 60(b) a District court could set aside a judgment, confirming a court-annexed arbitration award.2 This would go against Nevada Arbitration Rule (NAR) 19(C) limiting post-judgment relief only to that which corrects clerical mistakes and errors.3 The court held NAR 19(C) prevents a district court from granting post -judgment relief under NRCP 60(b) in the form of setting aside a judgment confirming an arbitration award. Thus, the court remanded and reversed the district court’s judgment and gave instructions to reinstate the arbitration award.
Republican Nat’L Comm. V. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Dec. 29, 2022), Savanna Bierne
Republican Nat’L Comm. V. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Dec. 29, 2022), Savanna Bierne
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In a per curiam opinion, The Nevada Supreme Court denied the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) emergency writ requesting mandatory statutory compliance by the Clark County Registrar. The Court found that the RNC incorrectly interpreted Nevada election statutes and failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.
Las Vegas Rev. J. V. Clark Cty. Ofc. Of The Coroner/Med. Exam’R., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Dec. 15, 2022), Ryan Edwards
Las Vegas Rev. J. V. Clark Cty. Ofc. Of The Coroner/Med. Exam’R., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Dec. 15, 2022), Ryan Edwards
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A District Court Judge must adequately explain a reduction of an appropriately granted award of attorney’s fees under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA).2 The explanation must consider the four Brunzell factors: (1) quality of the advocate; (2) the character of the work needed to be done; (3) the work performed; and (4) the result.3 Generally, the greater the amount of the reduction, the more thorough an explanation must be.
In Re Tr. Agreement, 23 Partners Tr. I, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Dec. 22, 2022), Chase Christensen
In Re Tr. Agreement, 23 Partners Tr. I, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Dec. 22, 2022), Chase Christensen
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Where an irrevocable trust uses terms to distinguish between different classes of beneficiary, the court must look at the usage of those terms within the instrument to determine whether a beneficiary is entitled to an accounting of the trust. Additionally, NRS 165.180 only stands for the proposition that NRS Chapter 165 does not contain an exhaustive list of the district court’s power over trusts. NRS 165.180 does not stand as an independent grant of powers not otherwise listed in the chapter.
In Re Tr. Agreement Of Davies, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Dec. 29, 2022), Camille Bayard
In Re Tr. Agreement Of Davies, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Dec. 29, 2022), Camille Bayard
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an opinion authored by Justice Pickering, following both the NRS and California law, the Court affirmed the district court’s holding, finding that a written instrument can transfer assets within a trust with real property, without a separate deed and, a description of real property held in trust satisfies the Statute of Frauds so long as the description provides sufficient means to identify the property using extrinsic evidence.
Nelson V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Dec. 22, 2022), Shannon Chao
Nelson V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Dec. 22, 2022), Shannon Chao
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A law firm is not automatically disqualified based on a paralegal’s imputed conflict of interest unless there is actual disclosure of confidences or ineffective screening measures. Additionally, district courts have broad discretion in determining whether a law firm must be disqualified, and whether to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine adequacy of screening measures.
Nelson V. Burr, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Dec. 29, 2022), Isabel Causey
Nelson V. Burr, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Dec. 29, 2022), Isabel Causey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Legal malpractice claims which arise from advice given during the drafting of an estate plan are transactional legal malpractice claims. NRS 11.207(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for both transactional and litigation-based legal malpractice claims. However, the Court has applied a litigation-malpractice tolling rule which delays the statute of limitations until the litigation in which the malpractice occurred ends and damages are certain. This tolling rule only applies to litigation-based claims. Therefore, because estate planning is transactional the tolling rule does not apply. Instead, when a litigant files or must defend against a lawsuit occasioned by transactional malpractice, they …
Mack V. Williams, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Dec. 29, 2022), John Bolliger
Mack V. Williams, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Dec. 29, 2022), John Bolliger
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
To determine if a private right of action exists for a violation of a self-executing provision of the Nevada Constitution, the court applies a three-step test. First, the court asks whether the language and history of the constitutional provision established an indication of intent to provide or withhold the requested remedy. If answered negatively, the court then considers whether the several factors set forth in § 874A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts favors the requested remedy. Third, the Court considers if any special factors counsel hesitation in the recognition of monetary damages. In this case the Nevada Supreme Court …
Martin V. Martin, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 01, 2022), Caitlin Gwin
Martin V. Martin, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 01, 2022), Caitlin Gwin
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In this decision authored by Justice Stiglich, the Court held that a property settlement incident to a divorce decree is enforceable when it requires a divorcing veteran spouse to make payments from military disability pay. Although federal law prohibits state courts from awarding veteran disability pay in a divorce, the Court found an indemnification provision in a property settlement resulting in the payment of disability pay was enforceable because the parties had previously negotiated and agreed to the terms. While the Court would not have been able to award veteran disability pay as part of a property settlement, the divorcing …
Hamza Zalyaul V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Nov. 23, 2022), Devo Leichter
Hamza Zalyaul V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Nov. 23, 2022), Devo Leichter
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In considering whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over felonious acts committed by minors who avoid charges until adulthood, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile courts have exclusive jurisdiction over delinquent acts unless otherwise provided under NRS 62B.335.
In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez
In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the District Court of Nevada to have specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trustee, they must meet the Calder effects test to show that the defendant purposefully directed his actions towards Nevada. Mere actions towards a plaintiff living in Nevada will not amount to sufficient contacts in Nevada. Margaret must show Steven expressly aimed his actions at Nevada. Margaret failed to bring prima facie evidence of the effects in Nevada. Therefore, Nevada does not have specific personal jurisdiction over Steven.
Iliescu V. The Regional Transportation Commission Of Washoe County, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nov. 17, 2022), Brittany Lyons
Iliescu V. The Regional Transportation Commission Of Washoe County, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nov. 17, 2022), Brittany Lyons
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Gibbons, the Court affirmed in part and remanded the district court’s rulings for claims made by the Petitioners. First, the Court held that only tenants could commit waste on the property they are tenants of. Second, injunctive relief may not be a separate cause of action. Third, the Court held that plaintiffs pursuing a breach-of-cause contract claim must show a causal relationship between a breach and damages. Fourth, the Court found that nominal damages may be awarded where other forms of damages could not be found and that nominal damages can be awarded …
Freeman Expositions, Llc V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Dec. 01, 2022), Keaunui Harris
Freeman Expositions, Llc V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Dec. 01, 2022), Keaunui Harris
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Legislature has clearly distinguished between recreational and medical cannabis use in the employment context. Under NRS 678C.850(3), employees have a private right of action when an employer does not provide reasonable accommodations for the use of medical cannabis off-site and outside of working hours. While employees have a private right of action under NRS 678C.850, they lack a cause of action in such circumstances for tortious discharge or negligent hiring, training, or supervision. Furthermore, pursuant to Ceballos v. NP Palace, LLC, employees who use medical cannabis may not bring a claim against their employer under NRS 613.333.
Clark Nmsd, Llc, D/B/A The Sanctuary, V. Jennifer M. Goldstein, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Nov. 23, 2022), Emily Kunz
Clark Nmsd, Llc, D/B/A The Sanctuary, V. Jennifer M. Goldstein, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Nov. 23, 2022), Emily Kunz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 31.070 outlines a process for determining title to property that is being questioned. The process allows an entity served with a writ of attachment the opportunity to request a hearing to determine the correct title for the property. This process grants an entity, even a third-party entity, standing to challenge a district court’s order by following the process outlined in NRS 31.070.
Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James
Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When a plaintiff timely moves for an extension of the service period under NRCP 4(e)(3), the district court must consider the Scrimer factors. This includes factors that relate to the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and to any circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control that may have resulted in the failure to timely serve the defendant. The Court addressed which factors are to be applied when a district court considers a timely motion to extend the service period for a summons and complaint. The Court had previously articulated the relevant factors to determine whether a plaintiff has shown good cause for …
Seibel V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Nov. 23, 2022), Tzu-Wen Lin
Seibel V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Nov. 23, 2022), Tzu-Wen Lin
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In this opinion drafted by Justice Hardesty, the Court clarifies the burden of proof that district courts are to use when determining whether the crime-fraud exception should apply under NRS 49.115(1). The Court holds that the party seeking to invoke the crime-fraud exception must satisfy a two-part test which the party must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme” and (2) the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are “sufficiently related to and were made …
Beavor V. Tomsheck, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 10, 2022), Genell Maggiacomo
Beavor V. Tomsheck, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 10, 2022), Genell Maggiacomo
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an opinion written by Justice Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court evaluated whether assignment of proceeds towards an opponent in the same litigation where the legal malpractice arose is valid. The Nevada Supreme Court held that it is invalid because of the violation of public policy. The Court followed the precedent set out in Tower Homes, LLC v. Heaton, which held that assignments for legal malpractice claims prohibited public policy. The Court held that the district court ruled correctly by invalidating the assignment. However, an invalid assignment would not preclude an injured client from pursuing a legal malpractice claim where …