Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (5)
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Criminal Law (3)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (2)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DUE PROCESS (2)
-
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Minimum Wage Amendment (2)
- Minimum wage amendment (2)
- Right to a fair trial (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- AND SELF INCRIMINATION IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGISTRIES (1)
- Access to courts (1)
- Adult certification (1)
- Art. 1 Sec. 8(6) (1)
- BATSON (1)
- Bail Increase (1)
- Bifurcation (1)
- Burden of Proof (1)
- Buzz Stew I (1)
- CASINO (1)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE: APPELLATE; DISCRETIONARY-FUNCTION IMMUNITY (1)
- CONSITUTIONAL LAW (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL & CRIMINAL LAW: DOUBLE JEOPARDY (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS; statutory interpretation; budget; appropriation (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: SEPARATION OF POWERS (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: VAGUENESS; STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRIVILEGES: ABSOLUTE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Writs of Mandamus (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW (1)
Articles 31 - 60 of 95
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. Of Nev. V. Gitter, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Apr. 27, 2017)., Scott Cardenas
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
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
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
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 …
Mdc Rests. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Oct. 27, 2016), Alysa Grimes
Mdc Rests. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Oct. 27, 2016), Alysa Grimes
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
To “provide” health benefits under the Minimum Wage Amendment, an employer need only offer to employees (rather than enroll them in) a qualifying health benefit plan. Tips are not included in an employee’s gross taxable income for calculating maximum health benefit plan premiums.
Perry V. Terrible Herbst, Inc., Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 27, 2016), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Perry V. Terrible Herbst, Inc., Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 27, 2016), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) of the Nevada Constitution does not have a specific statute of limitations provision. Because the MWA is closely analogous to recovery for back pay under NRS 608.260, the two-year statute of limitations provision in NRS 608.260 applies, and not the catch-all four-year period from NRS 11.220.
Nev. Yellow Cab, Et Al., V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Oct. 27, 2016)., Beatriz Aguirre
Nev. Yellow Cab, Et Al., V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Oct. 27, 2016)., Beatriz Aguirre
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court, sitting en banc, considered a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The Court held that its previous decision in Thomas v. Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. applied retroactively. As a result, the Minimum Wage Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Nevada Constitution passed by Nevada voters in 2006 included taxicab driver wages.
Schwartz V. Lopez, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Sep. 29, 2016), Scott Cardenas
Schwartz V. Lopez, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Sep. 29, 2016), Scott Cardenas
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) Article 11, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution does not limit the Legislature’s discretion in encouraging other methods of education, and based on this, the Education Savings Account (“ESA”) program is not contrary to Article 11, Section 2 which requires the Legislature to “provide for a uniform system of common schools”; and that (2) the funds deposited in the education savings account are not “public funds” subject to Article 11, Section 10; and finally that (3) the ESA program violates the mandate under Section 2 and 6 to fund public education because SB 302 does …
Mary Lou Cornella V. Churchill County, Et Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (August 12, 2016), Stephanie Glantz
Mary Lou Cornella V. Churchill County, Et Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (August 12, 2016), Stephanie Glantz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Schneider), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 12, 2016), Ping Chang
State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Schneider), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 12, 2016), Ping Chang
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when overturning a misdemeanor driving under the influence conviction by failing to consider the state’s evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A contempt order that does not contain a purge clause is criminal in nature, therefore the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies.
Scenic Nevada, Inc. V. City Of Reno, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 48 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Scenic Nevada, Inc. V. City Of Reno, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 48 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Constitution, Article 19, § 2(3), prohibits the Legislature from amending or repealing a voter initiative statute for the first three years after it takes effect. The Court held that this three year moratorium also applies to voter-initiated municipal ordinances. The Court, therefore, upheld the lower court’s denial of declaratory relief because the legislature passed/reenacted the challenged ordinance after the moratorium expired.
Castaneda V. State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 16, 2016), Chelsea Finnegan
Castaneda V. State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 16, 2016), Chelsea Finnegan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appellant was convicted of 15 counts of child pornography under NRS 200.730. Appellant contested 14 of the 15 charges, arguing that his possession of 15 images of child pornography constituted only one violation. The Court agreed and determined that prosecuting each image or depiction of child pornography as a separate charge under NRS 200.730 is not what the legislature intended. The statute should not be read to charge each “possession” as one violation. The Court reversed 14 of the charges.
Nevada's Education Savings Accounts: A Constitutional Analysis, Thomas W. Stewart, Brittany Walker
Nevada's Education Savings Accounts: A Constitutional Analysis, Thomas W. Stewart, Brittany Walker
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This piece will analyze potential conflicts between Senate Bill 302 and Article XI of the Nevada Constitution to explore the constitutionality of educational savings accounts.
Grupo Fasma V. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. Of The State Of Nv, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 21, 2016), Kristen Matteoni
Grupo Fasma V. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. Of The State Of Nv, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 21, 2016), Kristen Matteoni
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Merely because service of process complies with the Hague Convention does not necessarily mean that it complies with constitutional Due Process. Here, the district court failed to conduct adequate fact-finding necessary to determine whether service of process complied with constitutional Due Process. Accordingly, the Court issued a writ of prohibition instructing the district court to vacate its order denying Grupo’s motion to quash so that an evidentiary hearing may be held on the matter.
State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow
State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death of each murder. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made in two interviews with police after his initial appearance before a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at his initial appearance before the magistrate, but Defendant waived his right to …
City Of Fernley V. State, Dep’T Of Tax, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (January 14, 2016), Daniel Ormsby
City Of Fernley V. State, Dep’T Of Tax, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (January 14, 2016), Daniel Ormsby
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the Local Government Tax Distribution Account under NRS § 330.660 was general legislation, survived rational basis scrutiny, and therefore was not unconstitutional under Article 4, Sections 20 and 21 of the Nevada Constitution.
Kelley V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Apr. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren
Kelley V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Apr. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined (1) the charge of misdemeanor reckless driving, NRS § 484B.653(1)(a) is a lesser included offense of felony eluding a police officer, NRS 484B.550(3)(b) and thus, (2) the appellant may not be punished for both crimes because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits such conviction.
Fritz V. Washoe County, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 4, 2016), Jessie Folkestad
Fritz V. Washoe County, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 4, 2016), Jessie Folkestad
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This case involved the question of whether a counties’ approval of subdivision maps and street dedications which included a drainage system constituted inverse condemnation where the plaintiff’s property flooded as a result. The Supreme Court of Nevada adopted a six part element test for inverse condemnation, and determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the County’s actions constituted substantial involvement in the drainage system sufficient to deem it public use.
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that Carson City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) 8.04.050(1) is (1) unconstitutionally overbroad because it “is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words” and (2) vague because it lacked sufficient guidelines and gave the police too much discretion in its enforcement.
Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the State Engineer to grant water rights applications, there must be evidence to support the decision and the new rights must not substantially conflict with existing rights. On appeal from the District Court, the Court found no evidence to support the granted application, and held the use of Respondent’s rights would severely impact the water table. The Court reversed and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Summary Of Nevada Department Of Transportation V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (June 25, 2015), Jessica Gandy
Summary Of Nevada Department Of Transportation V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (June 25, 2015), Jessica Gandy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Nevada Constitution, there was no taking of Ad America’s property because the Nevada Department of Transportation publicly disclosed its plan to comply with federal law, the City independently acquired property that was part of Project Neon, and the City rendered land use application decisions conditioned on coordination with the Nevada Department of Transportation for purposes of Project Neon.
Summary Of Manning V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 7, 2015), Scott Lundy
Summary Of Manning V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 7, 2015), Scott Lundy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that it is a constitutional error when the district court fails to notify and confer with the parties when the court receives and responds to a note from the jury indicating that they are deadlocked. The Court further held such error will be reviewed for harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Summary Of Pitmon V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 26, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Summary Of Pitmon V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 26, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) NRS 176.035(1) was not unconstitutionally vague, (2) is its grant of discretion to district court judges was not unconstitutionally arbitrary, and (3) Nevada’s sentencing scheme does provide meaning appellate review of district court sentencing.
Summary Of Torres V. The State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, Jenn Odell
Summary Of Torres V. The State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, Jenn Odell
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined (1) an investigative stop under NRS 171.123 is transformed into an illegal seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment when an officer retains a pedestrian’s identification after the suspicion for the original encounter is cured and there is no longer reasonable suspicion to detain the pedestrian; (2) without reasonable suspicion, the discovery of an arrest warrant cannot purge the taint from an illegal seizure.
Summary Of Buzz Stew, Llc V. City Of North Las Vegas, Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 1, Stacy Newman
Summary Of Buzz Stew, Llc V. City Of North Las Vegas, Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 1, Stacy Newman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) in Buzz Stew I, the Court found no taking occurred under Art. 1 Sec. 8(6) of the Nevada Constitution, and Buzz Stew did not properly amend their complaint to pursue a new taking claim, and (2) a new trial is unwarranted because Buzz Stew cannot prove a taking and the district court did not clearly err by refusing to find a taking and awarding costs to the City.
Summary Of Jones V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, Kylee Gloekner
Summary Of Jones V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, Kylee Gloekner
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined (1) whether a criminal defendant’s access to the courts can be restricted by the district court when he or she is challenging a judgment of conviction and sentence or the computation of time served under a judgment of conviction; and (2) whether there is an established approach courts should take when restricting the access.
Summary Of State V. Cantsee, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 24, Sean Daly
Summary Of State V. Cantsee, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 24, Sean Daly
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined (1) whether a police officer’s citation to an incorrect statute is a mistake of law that invalidates an investigatory traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether a failure to identify and argue a statute in an opposition to a motion to suppress constitutes a waiver of that argument in the motion’s hearing.