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

Law Commons™

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

2017

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Articles 1 - 30 of 106

Full-Text Articles in Law

Estate Of Adams V. Fallini, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (December 29, 2016), Krystina Viernes Dec 2017

Estate Of Adams V. Fallini, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (December 29, 2016), Krystina Viernes

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether a party may appeal a district court’s order granting an NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a final judgment for fraud upon the court. The Court held the district court’s order interlocutory and may not be appealed until a final judgment is entered.The Court held that the district court was not barred from considering the NRCP 60(b) motion and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief based on fraud upon the court.

Go to article

Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl Dec 2017

Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS 41A was not intended to clarify the previous statute’s original intent; and (2) The 2015 Legislature intended for the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS Chapter 41A to apply prospectively.

Go to article

Mccrosky V. Carson Tahoe Reg’L Med. Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 115 (Dec. 28, 2017), Xheni Ristani Dec 2017

Mccrosky V. Carson Tahoe Reg’L Med. Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 115 (Dec. 28, 2017), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that vicarious liability is not abrogated by NRS 41A.045or by settling with one tortfeasor, unless the settlement so provides. Further, whether an ostensible agency exception exists is a question of fact that must be determined by the jury. Finally, after finding that federal law preempts NRS 42.021, the Court reverted to the per se rule in Nevada that collateral source payments may not be admitted into evidence.

Go to article

Brown V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 113 (December 28, 2017, Ebeth Rocio Palafox Dec 2017

Brown V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 113 (December 28, 2017, Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the definition of an indigent person and the demonstration of need sufficient required for an indigent person’s request for defense services. The Court additionally held that Widdis v. Second Judicial Dist. Court does not require an indigent defendant to request a sum certain before the consideration or granting of a motion for defense services at public expense.

Go to article

Rodriguez V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 110 (Dec. 28, 2017), Natice Locke, Natice Locke Dec 2017

Rodriguez V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 110 (Dec. 28, 2017), Natice Locke, Natice Locke

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that both the inherently dangerous and the functional definitions apply to “deadly weapon,” and that the use of the functional definition does not go against the legislature’s intent in NRS 200.481.

Go to article

Peck V. Zipf, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 28, 2017), Jeff Chronister Dec 2017

Peck V. Zipf, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 28, 2017), Jeff Chronister

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 41A.071, a plaintiff’s malpractice claim must be dismissed if the claim is not accompanied by an expert affidavit, but NRS 41A.100(1) states that the expert affidavit need not be submitted if the medical malpractice claim is argued under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Because the appellant failed to prove that the instrument left in his body was the result of surgery, the claim was properly dismissed in that the claim did not satisfy the elements to permit the statutory exception of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Likewise, NRS 41A.071 does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process …

Go to article

Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Grp., L.L.C. V. Higco, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 114 (Dec. 28, 2017), Tamara Cannella Dec 2017

Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Grp., L.L.C. V. Higco, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 114 (Dec. 28, 2017), Tamara Cannella

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held the declaratory judgment exception to claim preclusion applies when the initial action sought only declaratory relief.

Go to article

Eureka County V. Seventh Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 111 (Dec. 28, 2017), Michelle Harnik Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

Hawkins V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 28, 2017), Rex Martinez Dec 2017

Hawkins V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 28, 2017), Rex Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court must consider the factors from the Third Restatement when imposing sanctions in the form of attorney fees on parties.

Go to article

Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm Dec 2017

Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that district court’s focus—in a child custody case regarding educational placement—must remain on the child’s best interest and not on the religious objections made by a parent. Specifically, the Court found that the district court abused its discretion by (1) treating one parent’s religious objection as dispositive; (2) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and (3) failing to support its order with specific, factual findings.

Go to article

State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert Dec 2017

State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 604A.408(2)(f) bars a licensee from bringing any type of enforcement action on a refinancing loan under the statute. This is because allowing for enforcement action would go against the legislative purpose of the statute.

Go to article

Archon Corp., Vs. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (December 21, 2017), Landon Littlefield Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

Shue V. State Of Nevada, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 14, 2017), Margaret Higgins Dec 2017

Shue V. State Of Nevada, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 14, 2017), Margaret Higgins

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) under NRS 200.710(2), knowingly using a minor as the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance, the proper unit of prosecution is one conviction per each distinct minor appearing as the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance; (2) under NRS 200.730, the “simultaneous possession at one time and place of [multiple] images depicting child pornography constituted a single violation of NRS 200.730”; (3) the statute barring the “sexual portrayals” of minors are not overbroad and do not violate the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the United States …

Go to article

Mullner V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 7, 2017), Joseph K. Fabbi Dec 2017

Mullner V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 7, 2017), Joseph K. Fabbi

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A court can use offenses committed as a juvenile, but charged and convicted as an adult, when it considers habitual criminal sentencing, especially if the offender’s past convictions are similar to the crime currently being considered for sentencing.

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish Dec 2017

In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that parents who have terminated their parental rights do not have standing to challenge a district court’s placement of their child.

Go to article

Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert Dec 2017

Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in allowing illegally recorded conversations to be used by a court appointed child psychologist to evaluate a child’s welfare in a custody case.

Go to article

Neville, Jr. Vs. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 7, 2017), Anna Sichting Dec 2017

Neville, Jr. Vs. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 7, 2017), Anna Sichting

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified that NRS 608.140 allows for private causes of action for unpaid wages based on the language discussing attorney fees in a private cause of action.

Go to article

Agwara V. State Bar Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 96 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Lucy Crow Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

Doe V. State Ex Rel. Legislature Of The 77th Session, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 7, 2017), Shady Sirsy Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield Nov 2017

Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Though vexatious litigant determinations are not independently appealable, they may be considered on appeal when included in an otherwise appealable order.

Go to article

Collins V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 22, 2017), Casey Lee Nov 2017

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 …

Go to article

Gardner Ex Rel. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Nov. 22, 2017), Will Carter Nov 2017

Gardner Ex Rel. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Nov. 22, 2017), Will Carter

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The alter ego doctrine applies to LLCs and corporations, such that creditors may reach manager’s assets. The Court held that an LLC does not protect a manager or member from their own individual acts of negligence. Therefore, the Court directed the district court to vacate because, “the varieties of fraud and injustice that the alter ego doctrine was designed to redress can be equally exploited through limited liability companies.”

Go to article

Bradley V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Nov. 22, 2017), Brianna Stutz Nov 2017

Bradley V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Nov. 22, 2017), Brianna Stutz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court erred when it ordered J.A.’s juvenile and delinquency records be turned over to the defense in Hudson’s criminal case. The Court held that Dr. Bradley’s confidential records pertaining to J.A. are privileged, and no exception or waiver applies.

Go to article

Nationstar Mortg., Llc V. Saticoy Bay Llc Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 409 (Nov. 22, 2017), Connor Saphire Nov 2017

Nationstar Mortg., Llc V. Saticoy Bay Llc Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 409 (Nov. 22, 2017), Connor Saphire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment. In its holding, the Court concluded that it would not invalidate a foreclosure sale based on a low sales price alone. The commercial reasonableness standard established by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) does not apply to Homeowner’s Association (HOA) foreclosures because they involve real property sales. Rather, there must be a showing of “fraud, unfairness, or oppression” on behalf of the seller.

Go to article

City Of Las Vegas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Nov. 16, 2017), Jocelyn Murphy Nov 2017

City Of Las Vegas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Nov. 16, 2017), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was not sufficient to determine that any unpreserved issues were “plain” error. (2) The court also determined that NRS 50.155(1) does not presently bar witnesses from communicating outside of the courtroom about topics other than witness testimony when the witness exclusion rule is in effect.

Go to article

Farmer V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 16, 2017), Maliq Kendricks Nov 2017

Farmer V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 16, 2017), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that (1) Under NRS 173.115(2), separate offenses may be joined against a defendant when they are committed as parts of a common scheme where the defendant’s separate crimes share features idiosyncratic in character; and (2) under NRS 174.165(1), joinder is proper in situations where a defendant commits similar offenses in separate instances.

Go to article

In Re Discipline Of Reade, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 16, 2017), Ronald Evans Nov 2017

In Re Discipline Of Reade, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 16, 2017), Ronald Evans

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that, in this instance, an attorney should be suspended for four years after said attorney violated RPC 8.4(b). The Court further held that SRC 102 does not permit the Court to impose financial sanctions on an attorney when the Court is already suspending said attorney.

Go to article

Alotaibi V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Nov. 9, 2017) (En Banc), Brendan Mcleod Nov 2017

Alotaibi V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Nov. 9, 2017) (En Banc), Brendan Mcleod

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified that when an element goes only to punishment and is not essential to a finding of guilt, it is not an element of the offense for purposes of determining whether a lesser-included-offense instruction is warranted pursuant to NRS 175.501. Further, the Court determined that where a statute provides alternative ways of committing an uncharged offense, the elements of only one of those alternatives needs to be included in the charged offense for the uncharged offense to be a lesser-included offense.

Go to article

Next Last