Law Commons^™

State Dep’T Of Corr. V. Ludwick, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 2, 2019), Tayler Bingham

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determination that a crime is so serious that termination serves the public good, even when the agency has no published regulation dictating that outcome, and (2) an administrative hearing officer committed a clear error of law in relying, in any way, upon an invalid regulation to review an agency’s determination to terminate for a first-time disciplinary action.

Demaranville V. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.’S, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Sept. 5, 2019), Anya Lester

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the last injurious exposure rule determines the liability for occupational disease which is conclusively presumed to have resulted from past employment. Additionally, the Court held that death benefits are based on the employee’s wages earned while working for the employer to which the occupational disease is causally connected.

Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

As a matter of first impression, the Court found that the 45-day service requirement for review of administrative decisions is not a jurisdictional requirement because the statute allows for extension based on good cause. However, in the present case, appellant did not show good cause for late service. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition.

N. Lake Tahoe Protection Dist. V. Bd. Of Admin., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Hannah Nelson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 616B.578(4) does not require an employer to know the precise medical terminology for an employee’s permanent physical impairment before the subsequent injury. However, the statute requires that an employee’s preexisting permanent physical impairment be fairly and reasonably observed from a written record and the impairment must amount to at least 6% whole person impairment.

O’Keefe V. State Of Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Jacqueline Cope

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed de novo whether a classified employee violated a law or regulation when she challenged a challenges a state agency’s decision to terminate. Moreover, the Court applied a deferential standard of reasonableness to the agency’s decision to terminate the employee in service of the public good.

State Of Nev. Local Gov’T Emp. Mgmt. Bd., V. Educ. Support Emp. Ass’N, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 8, 2018), Amanda Netuschil

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the plain language application of NRS § 288.160 and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 288.110 states that the vote-counting standard is to be determined by the majority of members of the bargaining unit and not by a majority of the votes cast.

Sarfo V. State Bd. Of Medical Examiners, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Nov. 1, 2018), Nathaniel Saxe

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when a complaint is filed with the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners against a physician, the physician’s due process rights do not attach to the fact-finding role of the administrative agency.

Zenor V. State, Dep't Of Transp., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 1, 2018), Brianna Stutz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that NRS 233B.130 prohibits attorney fees in petitions for judicial review of agency determinations.

K-Kel, Inc. V. State Dep't Of Taxation, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Mar. 10, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that (1) the district court does not have jurisdiction over a petition for judicial review of an administrative agency decision when the appellants do not file the petition according to statutory requirements, (2) that district court orders in a case where it does not have jurisdiction are void, and (3) that administrative agency decisions made in compliance with void court orders do not grant district court jurisdiction.

Felton V. Douglas County, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Feb. 15, 2018), Joshua Garry

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when an uncompensated volunteer, who has concurrent private employment and is injured during the course of volunteer work, shall have their average monthly wage for the purposes of workers’ compensation benefits to be the aggregate of the “deemed wage” provided by statute along with their earnings from the concurrent private employment.

Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers Loc. 16 V. Lab. Comm’R; Univ. Of Nev., Reno; & Core Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 4, 2018), Alma Orozco

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 233B.130(2)(c)(1)’s service requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. Further, under NRS 233B.130(5), the district court has jurisdiction to extend time for service for good cause, either before or after the 45-day service period has run.

Dep’T Of Health & Human Serv.’S V. Samantha Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 14, 2017), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the right to petition for judicial review is limited to contested cases. When Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) denies an applicant a registration certificate to operate a medical marijuana dispensary, it is not a contested case under the APA. Since it is not a contested case, the applicant cannot petition the court for judicial review.

State Engineer V. Eureka County, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sep. 27, 2017), Michelle Harnik

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In an en banc appeal from a district court order, the Court affirmed the district court’s order granting the existing holders of water rights’ petition for judicial review and vacating a limited liability company’s permits to appropriate water as proper and in compliance with the Court’s prior mandate.

City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed an appeal to determine whether an appellant: (1) “properly sought the disclosure of public records by a writ of mandamus,” and (2) whether medical marijuana establishments (“MMEs”) business license identifying information must be disclosed pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act. The Court held that NRS 239.011 provides the specific means by which to challenge the disclosure of public records, and thus Respondent properly filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Additionally, pursuant to NRS 453A.370(5), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public and Behavior Health (“Division”) has the proper authority to adopt …

Comm’N On Ethics Of Nev. V. Hansen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Jun. 29, 2017), Wesley Lemay Jr.

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An attorney for a public body, such as the Nevada Commission on Ethics, must obtain authorization from the client in a public meeting before filing an appeal of a district court decision. Failure to obtain authorization results in a defective, invalid notice of appeal.

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.

Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A judgment for penalty attorney fees and costs against a driver in an action that arises out of a motor vehicle accident is not a “judgment . . . upon a cause of action” arising out of the use of a motor vehicle such that its nonpayment may result in the suspension of driving privileges under NRS § 485.302.

Poremba V. S. Nev. Paving, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Christopher Kelly

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) an administrative officer must first determine whether to reopen a worker’s compensation benefits claim, pursuant only to the requirements of NRS 616C.390, before considering whether the insurer is entitled to reimbursement due to a third party settlement; and (2) that insurers may be entitled to reimbursement for funds an injured party receives in third party settlements that are also covered by workers’ compensation, but are not entitled to reimbursement from the portion of the settlement designated for remedies outside the definition of “compensation” in NRS 616A.090, including pain and suffering and lost wages.

Village League V. State Bd. Of Equalization, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 1 (January 26, 2017), Yolanda Carapia

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) NRS 361.395 does not provide the State Board with authority to order reappraisals; and (2) the 2010 regulation purporting to provide the State Board with such authority does not apply retroactively to the tax years at issue in this case.

Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determine that the decision of the State Contractors’ Board closing homeowners’ complaint and directing contractor to make repairs to residence was not a final decision resolving a contested case, as required to preclude a homeowner from relitigating whether contractor was required to have an electrical license. The Court also determine that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor needed an electrical license and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor completed its contractual obligations to homeowner.

Benson V. State Engineer, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 409 (Sep. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that NRS § 533.395 requires a party seeking relief from the cancellation of a water permit to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, even if the State Engineer is not authorized to provide the particular remedy that the party seeks. If the State Engineer is authorized by NRS § 533.395 to provide a party with a remedy, then the doctrine of futility does not apply to excuse the NRS § 533.394(4) exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the party must first show that the administrative process would afford him or her “no relief at all” before seeking …

Tate V. State, Bd. Of Med. Exam’Rs, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Sep. 10, 2015), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order denying an injunction challenging the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting stay of Board of Medical Examiners decision. The Court revered and remanded the district court’s order because the statute prohibiting district courts from entering a stay of a decision of the Board of Medical Examiners pending judicial review violates the separation of powers doctrine as a matter of first impression.

Veil V. Bennett, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (Apr. 30, 2015), Jaymes Orr

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that, although a sheriff has a duty to diligently execute arrest warrants, he is within his discretion to determine how to best execute the arrest warrants. The statute does not impose a duty to enter the warrant information into an electronic database.

Summary Of Lvmpd V. Blackjack Bonding, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, Sydney Gambee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the records of CCDC inmate calls were public records within LVMPD’s legal custody or control under the NPRA;[1] and (2) that Blackjack Bonding was the prevailing party and was therefore entitled to a statutorily mandated award attorney fees and costs,[2] regardless of their court-ordered responsibility to pay costs associated with production.

[1] See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 239.010 (2011).

[2] See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 239.011 (2011).

Summary Of David Abarra V. The State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 5, Amber Lilienthal

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the appellant exhausted administrative remedies for his improper finding of guilt claim; (2) the appellant exhausted administrative remedies for his improper filing, failure to correct, and First Amendment claims; and (3) the appellant failed to state a due process claim.

Summary Of Jones V. Nev. State Bd. Of Med. Examiners, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 4, Janine Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners (the “Board”) issues a petition for contempt due to a party’s failure to comply with an administrative subpoena or otherwise properly participate in a proceeding before the Board, NRS 630.355 is the governing statute that allows the Board to enforce compliance with its administrative process. Pursuant to NRS 630.355, venue is proper “in the district court of the county in which the proceeding is being conducted (emphasis added).” Venue for a proceeding under this statute is proper in the county where the administrative work of the Board takes place.

Summary Of Stockmeier V. Green, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 99, Tom Stewart

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that Nevada’s Chief Medical Officer’s examination of inmate diets and her resulting report to the Board fell well short of what was required by NRS 209.382(1)(b) in that included no analysis of the diets of general population inmates, addressed diets at only one of Nevada's correctional facilities, and generally lacked any indication as to how the required examination was conducted.

Summary Of Déjà Vu Showgirls Of Las Vegas, Llc V. Nevada Dep’T Of Taxation, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 72, Hayley Miller

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court (1) determined the sole remedy for a taxpayer aggrieved by a final decision from the Nevada Tax Commission concerning a tax refund request under NRS Chapter 368A (the Nevada Live Entertainment Tax) is to file a petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 233B.130 and (2) reaffirmed its judicial estoppel doctrine.

Summary Of Nassiri V. Chiropractic Physician's Bd., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 27, Danielle Barraza

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: 1) whether NRS 233B.135 of the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act sets out a standard of judicial review or a standard of proof, and 2) what standard of proof is required for state agencies in adjudicative hearings in the absence of a specific statutory mandate. Summary by Danielle Barraza.

Summary Of Liberty Mut. V. Thomasson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 409, Erica Nannini

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, and (2) whether Liberty Mutual is a resident of Washoe County to grant the Second Judicial District Court jurisdiction to consider its petition for judicial review.