Law Commons^™

Anderson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 27, 2019), Tayler Bingham

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) when the government relies on the forfeiture exception of the Confrontation Clause to introduce a witness’s out-of-court statements, the burden of proof the litigant must meet is that of preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel and thereby violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the trial court holds a Young hearing for each motion and enough evidence indicates there is not a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

Nevada V. Inzunza, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 26, 2019), Christopher Gonzalez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice after an analysis under the Barker-Doggett factors. The Court afforded “the only possible remedy” after it was found that a 26 month delay resulted from the State’s gross negligence and the delay was prejudicial to Inzunza.

(In Re Guardianship Of Carmen Wittler) Wittler V. Wittler, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (Aug. 01, 2019), Mckay Holley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

U.S. Bank Nat’L Ass’N Nd Vs. Resources Grp., Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (July 3, 2019), Christopher Gonzalez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) previous case law and the NRS require an HOA that is seeking to foreclose a superpriority lien to send the holder of a recorded first deed of trust a notice of default and notice of sale, even when they have not been formally requested. Additionally, they held that (2) the district court would have to decide questions of fact to determine whether Resources Group was a bona fide purchaser.

Cameron V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In & For Cty. Of Clark, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 28, 445 P.3d 843, Manuel Gurule

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Timmie Cameron filed a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s ruling to increase both his bail from $25,000 to $100,000 and his level of monitoring from mid-level electronic monitoring to house arrest.The Court ruled the district court did not establish a good cause to warrant the bail increase and writ relief was granted.

Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that if a trial court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness is unable to testify because the defendant wrongfully procured the witness’s unavailability and acted with intent to do so, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception can be applied in order to deny a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that in determining whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies, the trial court must hear the opposing parties’ arguments in the absence of a jury.

Azucena V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Ad. Op. (Sep. 5, 2019), Mia Mallette

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the trial judge’s actions during jury selection rose to the level of judicial misconduct in response to a prospective juror indicating she could not be unbiased. These actions could have impeded Azucena’s right to a fair trial with an impartial jury as the court feared that the potential jurors would not have been able to answer candidly about any biases they may have had.

Andersen V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 12, 2019) (En Banc), Erika Smolyar

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In light of recent statutes limiting the right to bear arms for people convicted of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence, the Court determined that because the Legislature reclassified misdemeanor battery in that context to constitute a serious offense, those convicted of it are entitled to a jury trial.

Henry V. Nev. Comm'n On Judicial Discipline, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 28, 2019) (En Banc), James Puccinelli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that NRS § 1.428 is constitutional. Thus, hearing masters are subject to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline’s jurisdiction.

Cooper V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 27, 2018), Christi Dupont

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that removing a potential juror on the basis of race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and held that the district court erred when it did not find a prima facie showing of race-based discrimination during the jury selection process.

State V. Second Judicial Dist. Court. (Hearn (Matthew)), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 96 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Taylor Buono

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court affirmed the district court’s decision and held that the prosecutorial consent provision in NRS 176A.290 violated the Nevada Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Furthermore, the Court struck the offending language, finding that the provision could be severed from the statute without impacting the legislature’s intent.

Granada-Ruiz V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had implied consent to the district court’s declaration of a mistrial. Further, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial. Thus, the Court denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the district court to grant his motion to dismiss and bar his re-prosecution.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).