Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
(In Re Guardianship Of Carmen Wittler) Wittler V. Wittler, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (Aug. 01, 2019), Mckay Holley
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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.