Law Commons^™

Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court conviction. The Court reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict of burglary and grand larceny. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over Barber because the legislation did not include language regarding jurisdiction stripping or dismissal requirements. However, the Court reversed the judgment because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support Barber’s conviction.

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.

State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Court considered whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile defender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence. The Court held that it does.

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.

Piroozi V. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district court barring petitioners, Dr. Piroozi and Dr. Blahnik, from arguing comparative fault of settled defendants at trial and including those defendants’ names on the verdict forms. In granting the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Nevada resolved a conflict between NRS 41.141(3) and NRS 41A.045, holding that NRS 41A.045 preempts NRS 41.141(3) and entitles a defendant to argue the percentage of fault of settled defendants at trial and to include the settled defendant’s names on the jury verdict form.

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 …

Newell V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (December 24, 2015), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The holding of State v. Weddell is extended. Responding with deadly force to the commission of a felony per NRS § 200.160 is justified only when the person poses a threat of serious bodily injury. Short of such a threat, the amount of force used must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to file an information by affidavit more than 15 days after the preliminary examination concluded, when the justice court committed an “egregious error,” and “the defendant was discharged but not prejudiced by the delay.” Further, the Court defines “egregious error” as when “a charge was erroneously dismissed or a defendant was erroneously discharged based on a magistrate’s error.” Due to the justice court’s egregious errors in the preliminary examination that resulted in appellant’s discharge, the Court found that the district court was …

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.

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.

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.

Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing

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.

Becker V. Becker, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Oct. 29, 2015), Paul George

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In response to a certified question by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, the Court concluded that under NRS 21.090(1)(bb) a debtor can exempt his stock in the corporations described in NRS 78.746(2), but his economic interest in that stock is still subject to the charging order remedy in NRS 78.746(1).

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.

Anderson V. Mandalay Corp., Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Oct. 10, 2015), Emily Haws

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) NRS § 41.745(1)(c) sets forth a factual inquiry; (2) a reasonable jury could find it “reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and scope of his . . . employment” that a hotel employee would rape a hotel guest; and (3) direct negligence claims against an employer are not futile when a reasonable jury could conclude under the facts that the employer could reasonably foresee the employee’s unlawful act.

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.

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: Manhattan West Mechanic’S Lien Litigation, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 24, 2015), Kristian Kaskla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a general subordination agreement effects a partial subordination; and (2) NRS 108.225 does not preclude parties from contracting for a partial subordination.

Mika V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sep. 24, 2015), Kory Koerperich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court denied extraordinary writ relief from the district court’s decision to compel arbitration between Petitioners and their employer based on a long-form arbitration agreement signed only by the Petitioners, and federal law favoring arbitration agreements.

Mardian V. Greenberg Family Trust, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Sep. 24, 2015), Colton Loretz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that the promissory note, which had security interest by both a deed of trust of Arizona real property and personal guaranties, was governed by Nevada limitations period because of the Nevada choice-of-law provision within the contract. Consequently, the Court held that the party seeking deficiency judgment was time-barred pursuant to NRS 40.455(1) because the judgment was not sought within six months of the foreclosure sale of the collateral property.

Am. First Fed. Credit Union V. Soro, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Sep. 24, 2014), Katherine Maher

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a contract clause in which the parties “submit themselves to the jurisdiction of” another state, without more exclusive language, is permissive and does not result in a mandatory forum selection clause.

Tallman V. Eight Judicial District Court, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 60673 (Sep. 24, 2015), Marta Kurshumova

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that an employment arbitration agreement, which contains a clause waiving the right to initiate or participate in class actions, constitutes a valid contract, even though it is not signed by the employer. The Court further determined that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to all transactions involving commerce and does not conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, which permits and requires arbitration. Finally, the Court found that a party does not automatically waive its contractual rights to arbitration by removing an action to federal court.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. V. Hansen, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Sept. 24, 2015), Kristen Matteoni

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under Nevada law, an insurer is required to provide independent counsel of the insured choosing when a conflict of interest arises between the insured and the insurer. A reservation of rights fails to create a per se conflict of interest. Instead, the courts must analyze on a case-by-case basis whether an actual conflict exists. Only if an actual conflict exists, must an insurer be obligated to provide the insured with independent counsel.