Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) removed two minors from their parents' care due to domestic violence and placed them with their paternal aunt. DFS provided rental assistance to the aunt for two months until she became a licensed foster parent and began receiving foster care subsidies. The children's attorney requested additional rental assistance for the aunt, which DFS declined. During a hearing on a motion to terminate parental rights, the district court ordered DFS to pay an additional $1,000 towards the aunt's rent. DFS sought reconsideration, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada initially ordered DFS to pay the rental assistance, citing NRS 432B.550(1) as the basis for its authority. DFS argued that the district court lacked statutory authority to issue such an order and petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the order.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked statutory authority to order DFS to pay rental assistance. The court found that NRS 432B.550(1) and NRS 432B.590(7) did not empower the district court to direct DFS to make such payments. The court emphasized that DFS has broad statutory authority to manage its budget without interference from the court. Consequently, the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing the order. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order requiring DFS to pay rental assistance to the foster parent. View "In re N.R.R. and N.I.R." on Justia Law

Paul Martinez and Jennifer Martinez divorced in California in 2015, with Jennifer receiving primary physical custody of their child, L.M., due to Paul's health issues. Paul and Jennifer shared joint legal custody. After Jennifer moved to Nevada with L.M., Paul requested a custody evaluation, which resulted in maintaining the existing custody arrangement but with Paul entitled to visitation one weekend per month. The parties were to split transportation costs equally. In 2020, the custody matter was transferred to Nevada.The Nevada district court denied Paul's motion for primary physical custody and Jennifer's countermotion for supervised visitation, instead increasing Paul's visitation. The court ordered Jennifer to bear all transportation costs for L.M.'s visits to Paul, citing her relocation. Jennifer's motion to alter this determination was denied, leading her to appeal. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, and Jennifer petitioned for review by the Nevada Supreme Court.The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that transportation costs must be considered as part of the overall child support determination under NAC 425.150. The court found that the district court erred by imposing all transportation costs on Jennifer without considering the parties' financial situations or the established child support obligations. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order imposing transportation costs on Jennifer and remanded the matter for further proceedings to apply the NAC 425.150 framework. The court affirmed the district court's decision to modify visitation, finding no abuse of discretion and no violation of Jennifer's due process rights. View "Martinez v. Martinez" on Justia Law