Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kenneth Vaughn, a self-described Moorish National, was convicted by a jury of six counts of offering a false instrument for filing or record, two counts of simulation of summons, complaint, judgment, order, or other legal process, and two counts of intimidating a public officer. Vaughn sent documents to his landlords and the Clark County Recorder's office, claiming ownership of properties he did not own and threatening public officers when his documents were not recorded. He was sentenced as a habitual criminal to an aggregate prison term of 5-20 years and ordered to pay $19,600 in restitution.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County adjudicated Vaughn as a habitual criminal and denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. Vaughn represented himself at trial with standby counsel and was convicted on all counts. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing several grounds including the denial of his motion to dismiss, insufficient evidence, prejudicial witness testimony, misleading jury instructions, improper habitual criminal adjudication, and an unsupported restitution award.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that the State failed to prove the elements of the charges under NRS 239.330(1) because the documents Vaughn attempted to record were not of a type that could be recorded under state or federal law. Consequently, the court reversed Vaughn's conviction on the six counts of offering a false instrument for filing or record. The court also reversed the restitution award, finding that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. However, the court affirmed Vaughn's conviction on the remaining counts and upheld the habitual criminal adjudication and the sentence imposed for those counts. View "VAUGHN VS. STATE" on Justia Law

Leanne Nester and Cody Gamble divorced in 2022, with custody arrangements for their two minor children outlined in the divorce decree. Gamble later moved to modify custody, and during the proceedings, a press organization requested media access, which the district court granted. Nester moved for reconsideration, seeking to close the hearing to protect sensitive information about the children, including medical and Child Protective Services records. The district court denied her motion, interpreting a previous case, Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court, as precluding closure of family law proceedings.The district court concluded it lacked discretion to close the hearing, stating there was no statute or rule allowing it. Nester then sought writ relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the district court misinterpreted Falconi and failed to consider her privacy interests and those of her children.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its interpretation of Falconi. The court clarified that Falconi does not prohibit the closure of family law proceedings but requires a case-by-case analysis to determine if closure is warranted. The court outlined that closure is permissible if it serves a compelling interest, there is a substantial probability that the interest could be harmed without closure, and no alternatives to closure would adequately protect the interest.The Supreme Court of Nevada granted Nester's petition, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to close the hearing and to reconsider the motion using the test outlined in Falconi. The court emphasized the need for the district court to properly apply the factors to determine whether closure is justified. View "NESTER VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

In 2016, Daniel Zeljkovich, driving a tractor trailer, collided with Donald Matthews, who was insured by Protective Insurance Company. Zeljkovich was insured by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group. Matthews sued Zeljkovich for negligence in Virginia, and Spirit negotiated a $700,000 settlement. Before finalizing the settlement, Spirit became insolvent and was placed into receivership and liquidation. Matthews then sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits from Protective, which paid him $700,000 and claimed subrogation rights against Spirit’s estate.The Special Deputy Receiver categorized Protective’s claim under the residual priority category, NRS 696B.420(1)(g), due to insufficient funds. Protective objected, arguing its claim should fall under the higher-priority classification, NRS 696B.420(1)(b). The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, affirmed the Special Deputy Receiver’s decision, leading Protective to appeal.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that NRS 696B.420(1)(b) excludes a private insurance company’s subrogation claim. The court reasoned that subrogation law, the statute’s text, and public policy all support this exclusion. The court emphasized that the statute prioritizes claims by policyholders and statutory insurance guaranty associations, not private insurers. The court also found that including private insurers’ subrogation claims would undermine the statute’s purpose of protecting vulnerable insurance consumers. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, relegating Protective’s claim to the residual category, NRS 696B.420(1)(g). View "Protective Insurance Company v. State" on Justia Law

Respondents John Arvanites and Jonathon Burdette, both peace officers employed by the City of Las Vegas, were involved in a disciplinary investigation. A City employee lodged a complaint against Arvanites, and Burdette was notified as a witness. The City referred the complaint to its Human Resources Department, and a human resources analyst conducted the interviews. Respondents, including the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that NRS 289.060 required a ranked peace officer to conduct such investigations.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The court determined that the City violated the Nevada Peace Officer's Bill of Rights (POBR) by allowing a human resources employee to lead the investigation. The court declared that the City must ensure a peace officer conducts any interrogation or hearing in connection with such investigations and enjoined the City from using non-peace officers for these tasks.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that NRS 289.060(2)(d) requires a ranked peace officer to lead any investigation that could result in punitive action against another peace officer. The court found that the term "officer" in the statute refers to a peace officer, based on legislative history, statutory context, and public policy considerations. The court concluded that the City violated the statute by having a human resources employee lead the investigation and upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief. View "CITY OF LAS VEGAS VS. LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASS'N." on Justia Law

Laura Latimer and Egan Walker divorced in 2002 after 13 years of marriage. During their marriage, Walker earned 8.54 years of PERS credits. The divorce decree included a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that awarded Latimer half of Walker's PERS retirement benefits, secured by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allowing Latimer to elect Option 2. Walker later remarried, reentered public employment as a judge, and transferred his PERS credits to JRS, designating his current wife as the beneficiary. Walker sought judicial confirmation to designate both Latimer and his current wife as Option 2 beneficiaries.The Second Judicial District Court found that Walker could designate two different Option 2 beneficiaries for his PERS and JRS accounts. The court ordered that Latimer was entitled to 4.25 years of PERS credits but not to any of Walker's JRS account. Latimer filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. She then appealed, arguing that Nevada law permits only one Option 2 beneficiary and that her community interest in Walker's retirement benefits should not be defeated by his transfer to JRS.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that NRS 1A.450(1)(a) allows a JRS member to designate more than one Option 2 beneficiary. The court held that both Latimer and Walker's current wife could be designated as Option 2 beneficiaries, with each receiving their respective portion of the benefits if Walker predeceases them. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow two beneficiaries but reversed and remanded the order regarding Latimer's entitlement to service credits from Walker's JRS account, ensuring her protected interest in the retirement benefits is maintained. View "WALKER VS. WALKER" on Justia Law

Respondents, members of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, were charged with multiple offenses following a shooting incident where they allegedly ambushed members of the rival Vagos Motorcycle Club. The State of Nevada appealed district court orders that partially granted respondents' pretrial habeas corpus petitions, dismissing the criminal gang sentencing enhancement from the superseding indictment.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, found that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Hells Angels commonly engage in criminal activity, thus qualifying as a criminal gang. Consequently, the district court dismissed the gang enhancement from all counts. The State then appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court found that the State had presented at least slight or marginal evidence to support a reasonable inference that the Hells Angels engage in felony-level violence against rival motorcycle clubs, meeting the statutory definition of a criminal gang under NRS 193.168. The evidence included expert testimony on the Hells Angels' organizational structure, policies, and history of violent confrontations with rival clubs, as well as specific instances of violence and felony convictions involving Hells Angels members.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court substantially erred in dismissing the gang enhancement and reversed the district court's orders. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "STATE VS. DEVRIES" on Justia Law

Hugo Sanchez pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses involving two juvenile victims. Eight years later, he filed a petition to establish factual innocence under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 34.900-.990. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, stating that Sanchez did not meet the pleading requirements under NRS 34.960.Previously, Sanchez had filed a direct appeal, which was dismissed after he voluntarily withdrew it. He later filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming actual innocence regarding some charges. The State argued that such a claim should be raised in a petition to establish factual innocence. The district court denied the State's motion to dismiss and allowed Sanchez to amend his petition. Sanchez then filed an amended petition to establish factual innocence, supported by a declaration from one of the victims recanting her previous statements. The district court initially set a hearing but later limited it to the pleading requirements under the factual-innocence statutes and subsequently dismissed the petition without prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case to determine if an order dismissing a petition to establish factual innocence without prejudice is appealable. The court concluded that such an order is not appealable under NRS 34.970(9) or any other statute or rule cited by Sanchez. The court noted that the factual-innocence statutes do not provide for an appeal from an order dismissing a petition without prejudice and that such an order does not constitute a final judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "SANCHEZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

John Paul Alvarez was initially charged with misdemeanor possession of stolen property in Reno Municipal Court, to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in county jail. Subsequently, he was charged with residential burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and grand larceny in the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, based on the same incident. The primary issue on appeal was whether Alvarez's prosecution and conviction for grand larceny violated double jeopardy principles, given his prior guilty plea to possession of stolen property.In the lower court, Alvarez filed a motion to dismiss the grand larceny charge on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the State was barred from prosecuting him for grand larceny because it involved the same act as the possession-of-stolen-property offense. The district court denied the motion, concluding that under the Blockburger test, each offense required proof of a fact not required by the other. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Alvarez guilty of residential burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and grand larceny.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that a defendant cannot be convicted of both a theft crime and possessing or receiving the property stolen in the commission of the same theft crime. The court reaffirmed that theft crimes and possession of stolen property are mutually exclusive, alternative offenses. Consequently, the district court erred in denying Alvarez's motion to dismiss the grand larceny charge, as his prior conviction for possession of stolen property precluded the grand larceny conviction. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed Alvarez's grand larceny conviction but affirmed the other convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "ALVAREZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association and the Las Vegas Peace Officers Association negotiated additional holidays with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City of Las Vegas. These holidays included Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth. The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) refused to collect increased retirement contributions on the holiday pay for these additional holidays, arguing that they were not included in Nevada's statutory list of holidays.The Associations filed a declaratory relief action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, seeking to compel PERS to collect the appropriate contributions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Associations, directing PERS to collect the contributions for the additional holiday pay.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that PERS is required to collect additional retirement contributions for the increased wages earned on the negotiated holidays. The court concluded that the plain text of NRS 288.150(2)(d) supports the Associations' authority to negotiate holidays and that PERS must comply with these agreements. The court also determined that Juneteenth became a legal holiday in Nevada in 2021 following a presidential declaration and that PERS must collect contributions for this holiday retroactively to 2022. Additionally, the court found that the Associations have the statutory power to negotiate holiday pay for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and PERS is obligated to collect contributions for these holidays as well.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, requiring PERS to collect the appropriate employer contributions for the additional holiday pay as negotiated by the Associations. View "PUB. EMPLOYEES' RET. SYS. OF NEV. VS. LAS VEGAS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASS'N" on Justia Law

Sky Moore rented a car from Budget Car and Truck Rental of Las Vegas, owned by Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. Sky named Daniel Moore as an additional driver, who later rear-ended Alelign Woldeyohannes while intoxicated. Alelign sued Daniel for negligence and Malco for negligent entrustment. Daniel did not respond, resulting in a default judgment against him. The case proceeded to arbitration, where Alelign was awarded $32,680.26. Malco requested a trial de novo, leading to a short trial where the judge entered a default judgment against Daniel for $37,886.82.Alelign moved to apply the default judgment against Malco under NRS 482.305(1), which holds short-term lessors liable for damages if they fail to provide minimum insurance coverage. Malco opposed, arguing that NRS 482.305 is preempted by the Graves Amendment, which prohibits states from holding vehicle lessors vicariously liable without negligence or wrongdoing. The short trial judge granted Alelign’s motion, and the district court affirmed, concluding that NRS 482.305 is a financial responsibility law preserved by the Graves Amendment’s savings clause.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that NRS 482.305 is not preempted by the Graves Amendment because it is a financial responsibility law preserved by the savings clause under 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b). The court emphasized that NRS 482.305 imposes a legal requirement for lessors to provide minimum coverage, rather than a mere financial inducement, and does not impose strict vicarious liability on lessors. View "Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. vs. Woldeyohannes" on Justia Law