Law Commons^™

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

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.

Fergason V. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 31, 2015), Lena Rieke

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the State because the State failed to present evidence demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the funds it seized from petitioner’s bank accounts were subject to forfeiture as proceeds attributable to the petitioner’s commission of a felony; (2) the State’s forfeiture of funds seized from a bank account will not stand without evidence connecting the funds to criminal activity; and (3) NRS § 179.1173(4) requires the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence the property is subject to forfeiture.

The Court …

In Re P.S., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 24, 2015), Rob Schmidt

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that under NRS § 62B.030 the district court has discretion over whether to conduct a hearing de novo after reviewing the recommendations of a master of the juvenile court when timely requested.

Harrison V. Roitman, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that absolute immunity applies to party-retained expert witnesses as well as court appointed witnesses. Party-retained expert witnesses have absolute immunity from suits for damages arising from statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.

State, Emp’T. Sec. Div. V. Murphy, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Dec. 17, 2015), Michael Coggeshall

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that employees who are terminated from employment for absence due to incarceration, and are later convicted of a crime, are not eligible for unemployment benefits. These employees are contrasted with those who are incarcerated, but remained incarcerated due to indigence, or were not convicted due to unsupported charges. The latter group may be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Helfstein V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 91 (Dec. 3, 2015), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that the six-month deadline to set aside a voluntary dismissal or settlement agreement found within NRCP 60(b) could not be extended, despite an allegation of fraud.

Mcdonald Carano Wilson, Llp. V. Bourassa Law Group, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (December 3, 2015), Patrick Caddick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order. The Court reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling that NRS § 18.015 does not allow an attorney to enforce a charging lien when the attorney withdrew from representation.

Measuring The Impact Of Plausibility Pleading, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Ashcroft v. Iqbal and its predecessor, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, introduced a change to federal pleading standards that had remained essentially static for five decades. Both decisions have occupied the attention of academics, jurists, and practitioners since their announcement. Iqbal alone has, as of this writing, been cited by more than 95,000 judicial opinions, more than 1,400 law review articles, and innumerable briefs and motions. Many scholars have criticized Iqbal and Twombly for altering the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outside the traditional procedures contemplated by the Rules Enabling Act. Almost all commentators agree that …

In Re Guardianship Of Hailu, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Nov. 16, 2015), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that under NRS § 451.007 (the Uniform Determination of Death Act) the District court failed to consider whether the American Association of Neurology (AAN) guidelines adequately measure all functions of the entire brain and whether the guidelines are considered accepted medical standards by states that have adopted the Act.

Wph Architecture, Inc. V. Vegas Vp, Lp., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 5, 2015), Emily Dyer

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) NRCP 68, NRS § 17.115, and NRS § 18.020, which allow costs and fees to be awarded in several types of district court cases, do not require an arbitrator to award fees and costs after an offer of judgment has been made; and (2) NRCP 68, NRS § 17.115, and NRS § 18.020 are substantive in their application to arbitration proceedings.

On Regulatory Discord And Procedure, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

Businesses are increasingly global. But domestic courts’ jurisdiction remains largely provincial; both public and private regulators have overlapping, mismatched authority. Regulatory discord is readily apparent in consumer protection cases. When the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act empowered state regulators while simultaneously creating an encompassing federal regulator—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—it further contributed to overlap between federal agencies, states, and private litigation.

Whether this regulatory magnetism is optimal in terms of fundamental goals like compensation and deterrence is a hotly debated normative and empirical question. Yet, one need not wade too far into the substantive debate to appreciate …

Constructing Issue Classes, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

As government budgets shrink each year, enforcement responsibilities in products liability, consumer protection, and employment discrimination fall increasingly to private attorneys. But defendants have successfully layered new objections about noncohesive classes and unascertainable members atop legislative and judicial reforms to cripple plaintiffs’ attorneys’ chief weapon — the class action. The result? Courts deny class certification and defendants escape enforcement by highlighting the differences among those affected by their misconduct. At the other end of the regulatory spectrum lies the opposite problem. Some defendants’ actions are so egregious that hordes of public and private regulators can’t help but get involved — …

D.R. Horton, Inc. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 86 (October 29, 2015), Brandonn Grossman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal of a district court order granting Respondent HOA’s ex parte motion for a stay and enlargement of time for service pursuant to NRS 40.647(2)(b). Ruling on Petitioner’s two writ petitions, the Court held the district court’s grant of a stay was not in error and the NRCP 41(e) five-year limitation period was tolled under the Boren exception to NRCP 41(e). Accordingly, the Court denied both writ petitions.

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.

Okada V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Oct. 15, 2015), Baylie Hellman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) NRCP 30 generally governs the taking of depositions but does not set restrictions as to where the deposition must take place; and (2) while NRCP 30 generally limits depositions to “1 day of 7 hours,”NRCP 26(b)(2) sets for general considerations that district courts should take into account when determining whether the length of a depositions should deviate from the presumption one-day time frame.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Frew V. Traylor, 136 S.Ct. 1159 (2016) (No. 15-483), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3632, 2015 Wl 6083505, Eric Schnapper, Timothy B. Garrigan, Timothy David Craig, Jane Swanson

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Litigation regarding the legal responsibilities of large institutions, such as schools or prisons, is frequently resolved by consent decree. The widespread use of such consent decrees regularly gives rise to inter-related disputes about how to interpret provisions of those decrees, and about when the decrees themselves have been satisfied and may thus be dissolved. In the instant case the Fifth Circuit, expressly disagreeing with the standards applied in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, interpreted in a narrow manner, and then ordered dissolution of, key provisions earlier agreed to by Texas that protect the rights of millions of indigent …

Judging Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Presentations and Speeches

Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch presented "Judging Multidistrict Litigation" at Duke University School of Law's Mass-Tort MDL Program for Judicial Conference Committees on October 8, 2015.

The Indefinite Deflection Of Congressional Standing, Nat Stern

Scholarly Publications

Recent litigation brought or threatened against the administration of President Obama has brought to prominence the question of standing by Congress or its members to sue the President for nondefense or non-enforcement of federal law. Leading scholars in the field of congressional standing immediately expressed doubt that courts would entertain a suit seeking to compel enforcement of these provisions. This Article argues that the premise that suits of this sort can be maintained rests on a tenuous understanding of the Supreme Court's fitful treatment of standing by Congress or its members to sue the Executive.

The Court has never issued …

Ordering Proof: Beyond Adversarial And Inquisitorial Trial Structures, Emily Spottswood

Scholarly Publications

In typical trials, judges and juries will find it easier to remember the proof that occurs early in the process over than what comes later. Moreover, once a fact-finder starts to form a working hypothesis to explain the facts of the case, they will be biased towards interpreting new facts in a way that confirms that theory. These two psychological mechanisms will often combine to create a strong “primacy effect,” in which the party who goes first gains a subtle, but significant, advantage over the opposing party. In this article, I propose a new method of ordering proof, designed to …

Procedural Triage, Matthew J.B. Lawrence

Faculty Scholarly Works

Prior scholarship has assumed that the inherent value of a “day in court” is the same for all claimants, so that when procedural resources (like a jury trial or a hearing) are scarce, they should be rationed the same way for all claimants. That is incorrect. This Article shows that the inherent value of a “day in court” can be far greater for some claimants, such as first-time filers, than for others, such as corporate entities and that it can be both desirable and feasible to take this variation into account in doling out scarce procedural protections. In other words, …

Mandatory Process, Matthew J.B. Lawrence

Faculty Scholarly Works

This Article suggests that people tend to undervalue their procedural rights—their proverbial “day in court”—until they are actually involved in a dispute. The Article argues that the inherent, outcome-independent value of participating in a dispute resolution process comes largely from its power to soothe a person’s grievance— their perception of unfairness and accompanying negative emotional reaction—win or lose. But a tendency to assume unchanging emotional states, known in behavioral economics as projection bias, can prevent people from anticipating that they might become aggrieved and from appreciating the grievance-soothing power of process. When this happens, people will waive their procedural rights …

Perfect Plaintiffs, Cynthia Godsoe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Michaels V. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Oct. 1, 2015), F. Shane Jackson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a district court order denying the plaintiff’s post-trial motion for a new trial, which alleged that the defendant’s attorney committed misconduct during closing arguments at trial. The Court held that the district court failed to make the detailed findings required by the Nevada Supreme Court for claims of attorney misconduct and remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the matter and make the necessary findings.

A First Look At The Proposed 'Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act Of 2015', Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

Almost half a century ago, the American Law Institute observed, “The most marked abuse has been joinder of a party of the same citizenship as plaintiff in order to defeat removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Such tactics have led to much litigation, largely futile, on the question of fraudulent joinder.” Over the last half century, the volume of litigation on this question has only increased. In response, Congress is now actively considering legislation to address the problem of fraudulent joinder.

The bill is H.R. 3624, the “Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2015” (FJPA). The FJPA seeks to prevent …

Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court considered whether NRCP 4(i)’s 120 day requirement for service of a summons applied to cases filed under NRS § 432B, for protection of children from neglect and abuse. The court held that the 120 day requirement does not apply to cases filed under 432B and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the juvenile court to dismiss an abuse-and-neglect petition on that premise.

In Re Guardianship Of N.M., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (September 24, 2015), Daniel Ormsby

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court heard an appeal from a parent-appellant challenging a district court’s exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction to appoint a temporary, non-parent, guardian and general, non-parent, guardian. Affirmed.

William Nathan Baxter V. Dignity Health, Et Al, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (September 24, 2015), Andrea Orwoll

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order dismissing a medical malpractice complaint. The Court held that because NRS § 41A.071 creates threshold requirements for bringing medical malpractice suits, it must be construed consistently with the liberal pleading requirements. The Court reversed and remanded.

Watson Rounds V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Sept. 24, 2015), Lena Rieke

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 7.085 allows a district court to make an attorney personally liable for the attorney fees and costs an opponent incurs when the attorney files, maintains or defends a civil action that is not well-grounded in fact or is not warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for changing the existing law. The Court considered (1) whether NRCP 11 supersedes NRS 7.085 in sanctioning a law firm and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning the law firm under under NRS 7.085. The Court held NRCP 11 does not supersede NRS § 7.085 because …

Bergenfield V. Bac Home Loans Servicing, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sep. 10, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that when a district court dismisses a complaint but gives the plaintiff leave to amend the order it is not a final appealable judgment. In order for it to be a final appealable judgment, a plaintiff must give the district court written notice within 30 days that the plaintiff will not amend the complaint so the district court may enter a final, appealable order.