Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Series

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Articles 1 - 30 of 1349

Full-Text Articles in Law

In Re B.J.W.-A., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 12, 2023), Mackenzie Sullivan Feb 2023

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 …

Go to article

Tahican, Llc V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Feb. 2, 2023), Josette Vanderlaan Feb 2023

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.

Go to article

Taylor V. Brill, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Dec. 15, 2022), Jefferson Cummings Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Nelson V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Dec. 22, 2022), Shannon Chao Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Mack V. Williams, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Dec. 29, 2022), John Bolliger Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Washoe Cty. Human Servs. V. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Dec. 29, 2022), Rachel Blum Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Nelson V. Burr, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Dec. 29, 2022), Isabel Causey Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Republican Nat’L Comm. V. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Dec. 29, 2022), Savanna Bierne Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Las Vegas Rev. J. V. Clark Cty. Ofc. Of The Coroner/Med. Exam’R., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Dec. 15, 2022), Ryan Edwards Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

In Re Tr. Agreement, 23 Partners Tr. I, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Dec. 22, 2022), Chase Christensen Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

In Re Tr. Agreement Of Davies, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Dec. 29, 2022), Camille Bayard Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Arce V. Sanchez, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 22, 2022), Joe Coronel Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Martin V. Martin, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 01, 2022), Caitlin Gwin Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Hamza Zalyaul V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Nov. 23, 2022), Devo Leichter Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Freeman Expositions, Llc V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Dec. 01, 2022), Keaunui Harris Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Clark Nmsd, Llc, D/B/A The Sanctuary, V. Jennifer M. Goldstein, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Nov. 23, 2022), Emily Kunz Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez Jan 2023

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.

Go to article

Seibel V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Nov. 23, 2022), Tzu-Wen Lin Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Beavor V. Tomsheck, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 10, 2022), Genell Maggiacomo Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Iliescu V. The Regional Transportation Commission Of Washoe County, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nov. 17, 2022), Brittany Lyons Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James Jan 2023

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 …

Go to article

In Re Change Of Name: Salazar, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Oct. 20, 2022), Theodore Milk Nov 2022

In Re Change Of Name: Salazar, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Oct. 20, 2022), Theodore Milk

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an opinion drafted by Justice Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a district court must provide reasons for denying an adult name change petition. In adopting a new standard, the Court found that a district court must provide substantial and principled reasons for denying an adult name-change petition. The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when it denied appellant Salazar’s name change petition without explanation.

Go to article

Sweet V. Hisgen, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Oct. 20, 2022), Sydnee Mongeon Nov 2022

Sweet V. Hisgen, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Oct. 20, 2022), Sydnee Mongeon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When determining the proper identity of an “authorized person,” the Court must look at the laws of the foreign state where the will was executed. So, if a notary is an “authorized person” in the country the will was executed, Nevada must accept the will as valid when signed by a notary. Further, NRS 133A.050(2) and NRS 133.080(1) allow a will that fails to comply with the UIWA, to be probated if it complies with NRS 133. Also, courts must construe wills to avoid intestacy and the term “universal heir” implies that the person is the heir to the entire …

Go to article

Yafchak V. S. Las Vegas Med. Inv’Rs., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Oct. 27, 2022), Colin Meenk Nov 2022

Yafchak V. S. Las Vegas Med. Inv’Rs., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Oct. 27, 2022), Colin Meenk

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Professional negligence complaints are distinct from elder abuse complaints, with only the former requiring an affidavit of merit attached to the complaint. Where the type of complaint is unclear in regard to professional negligence and elder abuse, courts must look to the substance of the complaint to determine the scope and assess whether attachment of an affidavit of merit is statutorily required.

Go to article

Uber Tech., Inc. V. Royz, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Sept. 29, 2022), Mark Mulhall Oct 2022

Uber Tech., Inc. V. Royz, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Sept. 29, 2022), Mark Mulhall

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court is bound to the United States’ Supreme Court decision in Schein regarding contacts governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Therefore, when parties enter into an arbitration agreement that clearly and unmistakably delegates the arbitrability threshold question to the arbitrator, the district court must refer the case to arbitration even if the district court concludes the dispute is not subject to the arbitration agreement

Go to article

Johnston V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Oct. 6, 2022), Joe Morgan Oct 2022

Johnston V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Oct. 6, 2022), Joe Morgan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A defendant is constitutionally entitled to a prompt hearing after being taken into custody from pretrial release, and at that hearing, the State bears the burden of demonstrating probable cause. A violation of a condition of a pretrial release may lead to statutory sanctions, and the court does not recognize a distinction between so-called “technical” and “substantive” violations. NRS 178.4851 and Valdez-Jimenez require the district court to make findings of fact on the record that each condition of pretrial release is the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety and the defendant’s return to court.

Go to article

Airbnb, Inc. V. Rice, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Sept. 29, 2022), Roberto Nolasco-Cruz Oct 2022

Airbnb, Inc. V. Rice, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Sept. 29, 2022), Roberto Nolasco-Cruz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When parties clearly and unmistakably delegate the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator, the United States Supreme Court held in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., that, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a court has no power to determine the arbitrability of a dispute where the contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, even if the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to the dispute is “wholly groundless.” Courts err when deciding on an arbitrability question itself if the required standard established in Henry Schein has been met.

Go to article

Eby V. Johnston Law Office, P.C., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sep. 08, 2022), Davit Sargsian Oct 2022

Eby V. Johnston Law Office, P.C., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sep. 08, 2022), Davit Sargsian

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the second amended complaint and reversed the decision to dismiss the remaining malpractice claim with prejudice. According to Nevada’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act, the Court held a non-lawyer agent working under a power of attorney regarding claims and litigation could not litigate an action pro se in place of the principal or engage in the practice of law on the principal’s behalf. The trial court correctly held that the appellant’s non-lawyer agent under a power of attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The decision to …

Go to article

State Of Nevada V. Charles Wade Mccall, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Sep. 22, 2022), Kiana Parkes Oct 2022

State Of Nevada V. Charles Wade Mccall, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Sep. 22, 2022), Kiana Parkes

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an opinion written by Justice Stiglich, the Court clarifies whether a protective sweep is lawful when a prior arrest did not occur. The Court looked to other courts to determine if a prior arrest should be a requirement of a protective sweep. The majority approach adopted by courts was that an arrest does not have to occur prior to a protective sweep. This Court agreed with the majority approach and analyzed the lawfulness of the protective sweep in this case. Although the protective sweep in this case occurred before an arrest was made, the Court still found the protective …

Go to article

Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Inc. V. The Eighth Judicial District Court, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 18, 2022), Benjamin Reber Sep 2022

Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Inc. V. The Eighth Judicial District Court, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 18, 2022), Benjamin Reber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In order to intervene as a necessary third party, the motion to intervene must be filed before a final judgement has been entered that resolves the case. Additionally, even though the Las Vegas Police Protective Association attempted to intervene too late, the Court considered whether they were a necessary party at all. The Court concluded that they were not a necessary party because their absence would not impair or impede any of their interests.

Go to article

Next Last