Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns an individual who, after viewing pornographic videos online, believed that two people had violated federal obscenity laws. Despite reporting these suspicions to law enforcement without result, he decided to attempt a citizen’s arrest himself. He visited the couple’s home multiple times: the first time, disguised as a pizza delivery worker and equipped with restraints and weapons, he tried to detain one of them but was stopped and warned by police. On a later visit, he left documents at the door. On his final visit, after the couple had separated, he forcibly entered the home, leading to a physical altercation with one resident involving a firearm. Ultimately, he was arrested by police.In the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted second-degree kidnapping, second-degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon, residential burglary while in the possession of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, battery with substantial bodily harm, and stalking. At trial, the district court excluded most evidence related to the alleged federal crimes of the victims, ruling that a citizen’s arrest defense was not available for federal felonies and that the evidence did not support such a defense. The court also declined to give a jury instruction on citizen’s arrest and did not sua sponte instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the appeal. It held that Nevada’s citizen’s arrest statute does not authorize private persons to arrest for federal felonies committed outside their presence; thus, the district court correctly excluded the evidence and denied the defense. The court also held that district courts are not required to give lesser-included-offense instructions sua sponte and overruled prior precedent requiring such instructions without a request. The remaining arguments were found meritless, and the convictions were affirmed. View "Ser v. State" on Justia Law

A correctional officer employed by a city for over a decade contracted COVID-19 after close contact with an infected coworker. He was hospitalized twice and diagnosed with COVID-19, pneumonia, and related lung issues. He filed a workers’ compensation claim for occupational lung disease, asserting that his illness was work-related. The insurer denied the claim, and the officer sought administrative review. His treating physician classified his COVID-19 infection as a disease of the lung.An appeals officer reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of benefits. The officer found that, while the claimant was entitled to a statutory presumption that his lung disease arose out of and in the course of employment due to his years of service, he failed to show that his lung disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases, as required by the relevant statute. The Eighth Judicial District Court reviewed the administrative decision and denied the officer’s petition for judicial review, concluding that the appeals officer’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not erroneous.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that, under NRS 617.455, a claimant must satisfy both the requirement that the lung disease arose out of and in the course of employment (for which a conclusive presumption may apply) and the separate requirement that the disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases. The conclusive presumption does not eliminate the need to prove the exposure element. Because the claimant did not show his lung disease was caused by the required type of exposure, the court affirmed the denial of his claim. View "Holguin v. City of Henderson" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Clark County, Brian Caperonis was killed by other inmates. His father, William Joseph Caperonis, acting individually and as the special administrator of Brian’s estate, filed a civil complaint against the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and several of its employees. The claims included civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, and various negligence claims related to Brian’s death.NDOC moved to dismiss the state law negligence claims, arguing that the estate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243. NDOC asserted that, as the estate stands in the shoes of the decedent, it was required to file an administrative claim before pursuing litigation. William opposed, contending that the exhaustion requirement applied only to living inmates and not to the estates of deceased prisoners. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied NDOC’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plain language of the statutes and the relevant administrative regulations did not extend the exhaustion requirement to estates of deceased inmates.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed NDOC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the administrative exhaustion requirements in NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 do not apply to the estate of a deceased prisoner. The court reasoned that the statutory language is limited to “a person who is or was” in NDOC custody and does not contemplate survival claims by estates. The court also found that the administrative regulations provide no mechanism for an estate to pursue such remedies. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied NDOC’s writ petition, affirming the district court’s decision. View "Department of Corrections v. District Court" on Justia Law

Two police associations negotiated collective bargaining agreements with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City of Las Vegas to designate certain dates—specifically Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth—as paid holidays in addition to those recognized by Nevada statute. These agreements provided for increased holiday pay on those days. The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), which is responsible for collecting retirement contributions based on employees’ regular compensation, refused to collect contributions on the additional holiday pay for these negotiated holidays, arguing that only holidays listed in Nevada’s statutory list qualified.The associations filed an action for declaratory relief in the Eighth Judicial District Court, seeking to compel PERS to collect retirement contributions on the negotiated holiday pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the associations, ordering PERS to collect the appropriate employer contributions for holiday pay on Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth. PERS appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case de novo, as it involved questions of statutory interpretation and no disputed facts. The court held that, under the plain language of NRS 288.150(2)(d) and NRS 286.025, PERS is required to collect retirement contributions on all holiday pay negotiated in collective bargaining agreements, not just those for statutory holidays. The court also determined that Juneteenth became a legal holiday in Nevada in 2021 following the federal declaration, and contributions for that holiday are required retroactively to 2022, when it was included in the agreements. The court rejected PERS’s arguments regarding its authority and potential conflicts with the Internal Revenue Code. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "PUB. EMPLOYEES' RET. SYS. OF NEV. VS. LAS VEGAS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASS'N" on Justia Law

Several individuals were nominated by the Nevada Republican Party to serve as potential electors for the 2020 presidential election. After the Democratic candidates won the Nevada popular vote, these individuals challenged the results in state court, seeking to be declared the legitimate electors. Their challenge was denied by the district court, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Despite this, the individuals held a ceremony in Carson City, signed documents purporting to cast Nevada’s electoral votes for the Republican candidates, and mailed these documents to various officials, including the Chief Judge of the United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada.Based on these actions, the State charged the individuals with crimes under NRS 205.110 (uttering or offering forged instruments) and NRS 239.330 (offering a false or forged instrument to be filed in a public office). The indictment was filed in Clark County, where the federal courthouse is located. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the alleged offenses were complete upon mailing the documents from Douglas County, and thus venue was improper in Clark County. The Eighth Judicial District Court agreed, finding that the crimes were completed upon mailing and dismissed the indictment for improper venue.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the offenses charged were not complete upon mailing, but rather required the delivery and receipt of the documents at the intended location in Clark County. The court concluded that venue was proper in Clark County because the alleged crimes involved the delivery of false documents to a recipient in that county. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. DeGraffenreid" on Justia Law

The State of Nevada brought a consumer protection action against TikTok, Inc. and related entities, alleging violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA). The State claimed that TikTok knowingly designed its social media platform to addict young users, causing various harms to minors in Nevada, and made misrepresentations and material omissions about the platform’s safety. The complaint detailed TikTok’s collection and sale of young users’ personal data to advertisers, the use of design features to maximize user engagement, and public statements about youth safety that the State alleged were misleading.The case was first heard in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, where TikTok moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 and the First Amendment immunized it from liability. The district court denied TikTok’s motion in part, finding that it had specific personal jurisdiction over TikTok based on purposeful conduct directed at Nevada, and that the State’s NDTPA claims were not barred by CDA § 230 or the First Amendment. Other claims were dismissed without prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed TikTok’s petition for writ relief. The court held that the district court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over TikTok, as the State made a prima facie showing that TikTok purposefully directed its conduct at Nevada through targeted marketing and data collection. The court further held that the CDA § 230 and the First Amendment do not bar the State’s NDTPA claims at the pleading stage, as the claims target TikTok’s own alleged misrepresentations and harmful design features, not third-party content or expressive activity. The Supreme Court of Nevada denied TikTok’s petition. View "TikTok, Inc. v. District Court" on Justia Law

A violent incident stemming from a planned drug transaction led to the deaths of two individuals in Las Vegas. The victims, along with a third person, met with two men, including the appellant, at a gas station under the pretense of a drug deal, but intended to steal the drugs. After a confrontation, the victims attempted to flee in their vehicle, pursued by the appellant and his codefendant, who fired shots during the chase. Two of the victims died from their injuries. The surviving victim provided a detailed description of the assailants and later identified the appellant in a photo array after initially withholding the identification.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. The appellant filed several pretrial motions, including to suppress the identification evidence, his statements to police, and certain text messages, and to sever his trial from his codefendant’s. These motions were denied after hearings, some of which were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At trial, the jury convicted the appellant on all counts, including two counts of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and related firearm offenses. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 36 years to life.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a mixed standard of review applies to the suppression of pretrial identification evidence, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The court found the photo array was not unnecessarily suggestive and the identification reliable. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress the appellant’s statements, finding no coercion or Miranda violation. Other claims, including delayed rulings, authentication of text messages, denial of severance, and the giving of a flight instruction, were rejected or found to be harmless error. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "Camacho v. State" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

A deputy marshal who worked at the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County received a written reprimand following an internal investigation. The Clark County Deputy Marshals Association, on his behalf, sought a hearing under Nevada statutes that provide procedural protections to peace officers, arguing that deputy marshals are employees of Clark County and thus entitled to such protections. The core dispute centered on whether deputy marshals serving the court are employees of the county or of the court itself.The Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board determined that deputy marshals are employees of the court, not the county, and therefore not entitled to the protections sought. The appellants then filed a complaint in the district court seeking a declaration that deputy marshals are county employees. All Clark County district judges recused themselves, and the case was assigned to a judge from the Seventh Judicial District Court. That court granted summary judgment to Clark County and the Eighth Judicial District Court, concluding that deputy marshals are employees of the court because their duties are judicial in nature and directly support court operations, rather than general law enforcement functions.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that deputy marshals serving at the Eighth Judicial District Court are employees of the court, not Clark County. The Court reasoned that the judiciary has inherent constitutional authority to employ personnel necessary for its functions, including courtroom security and order, and that deputy marshals’ duties are fundamentally judicial. The Court also held that, although deputy marshals have peace officer powers, they are not part of a law enforcement agency and are not entitled to the procedural protections under NRS Chapter 289. The order granting summary judgment for the respondents was affirmed. View "CLARK CNTY. DEPUTY MARSHALS ASS'N. VS. CLARK CNTY." on Justia Law

A developer entered into an agreement with a city to develop a downtown district, which included provisions for three large signs identifying the area as "Reno's Neon Line District." The city council approved the agreement and adopted it by ordinance. A nonprofit organization dedicated to scenic preservation objected, arguing that the signs were actually billboards prohibited by city code and that the developers lacked the necessary interest to enter into the agreement.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County partially granted the nonprofit’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found that the nonprofit had standing to challenge the agreement. It ruled that one sign (the archway sign) was a permissible area identification sign, but determined that the other two signs (the gas station sign and the cemetery sign) were, respectively, an on-premises advertising display and a billboard, both in violation of city code. The court severed the provisions for these two signs from the agreement and issued a writ preventing their construction.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether the nonprofit had standing and whether the district court properly reclassified the signs. The Supreme Court held that the city’s classification of the signs as area identification signs was entitled to a presumption of validity and that substantial evidence supported this classification. The court further held that the nonprofit lacked standing to seek writ relief because it did not have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in the agreement, as the signs were not billboards and thus not covered by a prior settlement agreement with the city. The court also found that the nonprofit had waived any argument for representational standing. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RENO REAL ESTATE DEVEL., LLC VS. SCENIC NEVADA, INC." on Justia Law