by
Nev. R. Civ. P. 62(d) must be read in conjunction with Nev. R. Civ. P. 62(e) such that, upon motion, state and local government appellants are generally entitled to a stay of a money judgment pending appeal without being required to post a supersedes bond or other security. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner’s motion to stay enforcement of the attorney fees and costs judgment awarded to Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVRJ) under Nev. Rev. Stat. 239.011(2) after LVRJ prevailed on its public records request to obtain certain autopsy reports. The Court held that, under rules 62(d) and 62(e), the Coroner’s Office, as a local government entity that moved for a stay, was entitled to a stay of the money judgment without bond or other security as a matter of right. View "Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner v. Las Vegas Review-Journal" on Justia Law

Posted in: Civil Procedure

by
In this construction defect action brought by Homeowners, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not govern the arbitration agreement contained in the common-interest community’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) because, contrary to the conclusion of the district court, the underlying transaction involved interstate commerce. Further, to the extent that Nevada case law concerning procedural unconscionability disfavors arbitration of disputes over transactions involving interstate commerce, that case law is preempted by the FAA. The Court remanded this case for entry of an order directing the parties to arbitration. View "U.S. Home Corp. v. Michael Ballesteros Trust" on Justia Law

by
One party’s material breach of a contract releases the non-breaching party’s contractual obligation to a third-party beneficiary. The promisor in this case failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to Appellants under a settlement agreement. Appellants sued the promisor and six of its officers, including Respondents. Respondents, the third-party beneficiaries, claimed that the settlement agreement released them from liability for the promisor’s actions and precluded Appellants’ suit. The district court granted summary judgment to Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the promisor’s material breach of the settlement agreement released Appellants from their obligation under that agreement not to sue the promisor’s officers. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. View "Cain v. Price" on Justia Law

Posted in: Contracts

by
The district court in this custody modification and child relocation action abused its discretion by granting a motion in limine to exclude evidence of domestic violence under McMonigle v. McMonigle, 887 P.2d 742 (Nev. 1994), and Castle v. Simmons, 86 P.3d 1042 (Nev. 2004). Father moved to modify custody and relocate the parties’ child. When Mother opposed the motion, Father filed a motion in limine to exclude facts that occurred before the prior custody order was entered. The district court granted the motion. Thereafter, the court granted Father’s motion, determining that the parties had been exercising joint physical custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) McMonigle and Castle do not bar the district court from reviewing the facts and evidence underpinning its prior rulings or custody determinations in deciding whether the modification of a prior custody order is in the child’s best interest and do not prohibit parties from presenting previously known domestic violence evidence defensively to show modification is not in the child’s best interest; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by determining that the parties shared joint physical custody and granting Father’s motion to modify custody and relocate the minor child without considering the domestic violence evidence in determining the child’s best interest. View "Nance v. Ferraro" on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
A Nevada district court’s order denying a motion dismiss was not a final judgment on the issue of demand futility. Therefore, it was proper for the district court to accord preclusive effect to a subsequent final judgment from a foreign court. In this case involving whether a Nevada district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss constituted a final judgment on the issue of demand futility, the Supreme Court held (1) Nevada hereby applies the definition set forth within section 13 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, and under the Restatement, a judgment is final within the context of issue preclusion if it is “sufficiently firm” and “procedurally definite” in resolving an issue; and (2) in the instant case, the district court’s order denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss reserved for future determination the issue of demand futility, and therefore, the district court properly held that its prior order did not prohibit it from according preclusive effect to the subsequent order of the federal court. View "Kirsch v. Traber" on Justia Law

Posted in: Civil Procedure

by
The district court erred in invalidating a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw and suppressing the blood draw evidence because there was probable cause to support the search warrant. After failing a preliminary breath test (PBT) Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The results of the PBT were used to obtain a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw. The district court suppressed the PBT results, determining that they were obtained in violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court then suppressed the evidentiary blood draw, concluding that it was the fruit of an illegal search. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that the PBT results were obtained in violation of Defendant’s constitutional rights; but (2) there was probable cause to support the search warrant even without the PBT evidence, and therefore, the district court erroneously invalidated the search warrant and suppressed the subsequent blood draw evidence. View "State v. Sample" on Justia Law

by
The grounds on which the district court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of records where members of the Lyon County Board of Commissioners conducted county business on private cellphones and email accounts were erroneous. Appellant brought suit against the Board challenging its approval of a zoning change. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Lyon County to disclose all public records of the commissioners’ communications regarding the change to the county’s zoning plan, including the communications contained on the commissioners’ private cell phones and email accounts. In denying the petition, the district court reasoned that the records were not open to public inspection, within the control of the county, and records of official actions of the county or paid for with public money. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Nevada Public Records Act does not categorically exempt public records maintained on private devices or servers from disclosure. View "Comstock Residents Ass’n v. Lyon County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

by
The time to appeal outlined in the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (JCRCP), specifically the five-day period set forth in JCRCP 98, is jurisdictional and mandatory, therefore removing for the district court’s jurisdiction an untimely appeal from justice court. Petitioner filed a small claims complaint against real party in interest Las Vegas Paving Corporation (LVPC). The justice of the peace pro tempore granted Petitioner full relief. LVPC appealed to the district court. Petitioner moved to have the appeal dismissed under JCRCP 98. The district court denied the motion, thereby exerting jurisdiction to hear the matter despite an untimely appeal. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arresting the district court’s improper exercise of jurisdiction or compelling the district court to grant his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that because LVPC filed its appeal outside the allotted five-day period, the district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain LVPC’s untimely appeal. View "Southworth v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

Posted in: Civil Procedure

by
At issue was Nev. Rev. Stat. 453A.322(3)(a)(5)’s requirement that an applicant seeking to obtain a medical marijuana establishment registration certificate must obtain approval from the local government where the establishment is to be located verifying that the applicant is in compliance with applicable zoning restrictions and building requirements. Specifically at issue was whether this requirement must be satisfied before an applicant can receive a registration certificate. The Supreme Court held that it need not be satisfied and that the registration certificate is deemed provisional until the applicant is able to satisfy section 453A.322(3)(a)(5). View "Nuleaf CLV Dispensary, LLC v. State Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Public & Behavioral Health" on Justia Law

Posted in: Health Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court overruling the State Engineer’s decision denying Rodney St. Clair’s application for a permit to temporarily change the point of diversion of the underground water source on property he purchased in 2013 from an abandoned well to another location on his property. The State Engineer found the prior owner of the property had established a right to appropriate the underground water but that a subsequent owner abandoned that right through years of nonuse. In overruling the State Engineer’s decision, the district court found insufficient evidence that any owner of the property intended to abandon the property’s water right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an extended period of nonuse of water does not alone establish clear and convincing evidence that a property owner intended to abandon a water right connected to the property; and (2) in this case, there was no additional evidence indicating an intent to abandon, and therefore, the State Engineer’s finding of abandonment was unsupported by substantial evidence. View "King v. St. Clair" on Justia Law