Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization was formed to privately fund, design, develop, and construct a state-of-the-art medical education building for a public university’s medical school in Nevada. The organization, established by a coalition of charitable foundations and individuals, entered into an agreement with the university and the Nevada System of Higher Education to manage the project using private donations. The arrangement included transferring land to the nonprofit, which would oversee construction and, upon completion, lease the facility back to the university for a nominal fee before transferring ownership outright. The nonprofit received federal and state property tax-exempt status and then applied to the Nevada Department of Taxation for a state sales and use tax exemption, initially as an educational organization, later clarifying it was seeking exemption as a charitable organization.The Nevada Department of Taxation denied the application, reasoning that the nonprofit did not meet the criteria for an educational organization and, under its interpretation of NRS 372.340, was ineligible as a charitable organization because it was a government contractor. The Nevada Tax Commission upheld this denial, and the Eighth Judicial District Court affirmed, agreeing with the Department’s reliance on NRS 372.340 to deny tax-exempt status.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed and remanded, holding that the Department erred by failing to evaluate the application under the statutory criteria for charitable organizations in NRS 372.3261. The court clarified that NRS 372.340 does not disqualify otherwise-eligible charitable organizations from receiving tax-exempt status merely because they contract with the government. The court directed that the nonprofit qualifies for the sales and use tax exemption as a charitable organization and ordered the district court to instruct the Department to approve the application and issue a letter of exemption. View "NEV. HEALTH AND BIOSCIENCE ASSET CORP. VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A member of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians allegedly sold fentanyl to a non-tribal member while on tribal land within Nevada. After the transaction, the buyer left tribal territory and subsequently died in nontribal state territory from an overdose of the fentanyl, combined with methamphetamine. The State charged the tribal member with second-degree murder caused by a controlled substance, based on the sale leading to the buyer’s death.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge, agreeing with his argument that the federal Major Crimes Act preempted Nevada’s jurisdiction. The district court reasoned that the only alleged criminal act—the drug sale—occurred entirely within tribal land, and thus Nevada could not prosecute the offense.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada considered whether the State had jurisdiction to prosecute a crime that began in Indian country but was completed in nontribal state territory. The Supreme Court held that Nevada has jurisdiction over crimes consummated within its boundaries, pursuant to NRS 171.015. The court determined that the charged offense was not complete until the victim died, and because death occurred in nontribal state territory, the crime was interterritorial and consummated within Nevada. The court further held that the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a), does not preempt Nevada’s jurisdiction over crimes that occur partially in Indian country and partially in nontribal territory. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "STATE VS SALAZAR" on Justia Law

A California nonprofit organization that operates health centers in Nevada, along with a physician, challenged the enforcement of a Nevada law, originally enacted in 1985, that imposed parental notification and judicial bypass requirements on minors seeking abortions. The law had never taken effect due to a long-standing federal injunction, but after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, the federal court vacated the injunction in 2025, allowing the law to become enforceable for the first time. The challengers argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague, exceeded legislative authority, and violated procedural due process rights, particularly focusing on the requirements for parental notification and the process for judicial bypass.When the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the Eighth Judicial District Court, the district court found standing and ripeness only as to certain aspects but held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficient injury. As a result, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed de novo the questions of standing, ripeness, and the legal standards for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was ripe for review. The court found that the parental notification and judicial bypass provisions were unconstitutionally vague under the higher standard applicable to statutes involving criminal penalties and constitutional rights, as they failed to provide clear guidance to physicians and allowed for arbitrary enforcement. The court concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored granting relief. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction. View "PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC. VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant was the caretaker for an elderly man, Lawrence Turner, and lived with him in the same trailer. Over a period of about 15 months, the caretaker withdrew a total of $76,880 from Turner’s bank account through 120 transactions, using the money for gambling rather than Turner’s care. Turner’s health deteriorated significantly during this period, culminating in a severe, life-threatening ulcer and signs of neglect when paramedics responded to an emergency. The State charged the caretaker with 15 counts each of elder exploitation and theft, corresponding to each month of the alleged criminal activity, and one count of elder neglect.The case was first reviewed by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, where the State aggregated the theft and exploitation charges monthly. At trial, the jury convicted the caretaker on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to a lengthy prison term. The appellant timely appealed, raising several issues, including whether multiple counts for elder exploitation and theft were proper under Nevada law, whether jury instructions for elder neglect were accurate, and whether there was sufficient evidence for conviction.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada addressed these issues on appeal. It held that, under its recent decision in Smith v. State, the unit of prosecution for elder exploitation is one count per victim, and thus vacated 14 of the 15 elder exploitation convictions. With respect to theft, the court interpreted Nevada’s aggregation statute to permit only a single count for theft committed pursuant to a single scheme or continuous course of conduct, vacating 14 of the 15 theft convictions. The court found that errors in jury instructions for elder neglect were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of neglect and affirmed that conviction. The court affirmed the remaining elder exploitation and theft convictions and remanded for entry of an amended judgment. View "ROBINSON VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A driver caused a multi-vehicle collision in Las Vegas, during which he struck another vehicle’s trailer, triggering a chain reaction. After the crash, he remained at the scene for around 35 minutes, interacted with several Nevada Highway Patrol officers, provided his identifying information, and stayed until emergency personnel had arrived and begun treating the injured. He was not detained or told to stay by police, but left the scene after medical professionals took over care of the injured. Later, he was charged with reckless driving resulting in substantial bodily harm and violating the duty to stop at the scene of a crash involving personal injury.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, presided over a jury trial. The jury acquitted the driver of driving under the influence, but found him guilty of reckless driving resulting in substantial bodily harm and violating the duty to stop at the scene of a crash involving personal injury. The district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of two to five years for each conviction. The driver appealed both convictions, raising issues including sufficiency of the evidence, constitutionality of the statutes, prosecutorial misconduct, and exclusion of evidence.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Nevada’s duty-to-stop statutes require a driver to stop, provide identification, and render reasonable assistance, but do not require the driver to remain until police formally dismiss them. The court found insufficient evidence to support the duty-to-stop conviction, concluding the driver fulfilled all statutory obligations before leaving. Therefore, it reversed the conviction for violating the duty to stop and affirmed the reckless driving conviction. The court remanded the case to the district court to consider all available sentencing options for reckless driving and to enter an amended judgment of conviction. View "CARTER VS STATE" on Justia Law

Two individuals were involved in a car accident, after which one party sued for damages, alleging a traumatic brain injury and seeking nearly $2 million. The parties agreed that the plaintiff would undergo a neuropsychological examination, but they disagreed on the terms governing the examination. The defendant argued that Nevada’s Rule of Civil Procedure 35 (NRCP 35) should control the process, while the plaintiff asserted that a new statute, NRS 629.620, provided additional rights and should apply.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada ruled that NRCP 35 governed the examination but imposed several conditions, including disclosure of raw test data to the plaintiff’s counsel (with restrictions), permitting non-neuropsychologist experts to review the data, allowing the exam to be audio recorded, and permitting the presence of a court-certified interpreter. The defendant sought reconsideration, which was denied, and then petitioned for extraordinary relief from the Nevada Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRS 629.620 is unconstitutional to the extent it governs discovery in civil litigation and conflicts with NRCP 35. The court found that NRCP 35 is a procedural rule within the judiciary’s domain, and legislative attempts to alter its operation via NRS 629.620 violate the separation of powers. Regarding the specific exam conditions, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing disclosure of raw data to counsel with a protective order. However, it found the district court abused its discretion by permitting audio recording and the presence of an interpreter without a showing of good cause. The court granted the writ in part, directing the district court to modify those conditions, and denied relief as to the other challenged conditions. View "POWERS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A married couple who appeared on a reality television series operated a YouTube channel, while another individual and her husband operated a separate channel focused on reality TV gossip. The second channel discussed the couple and made several statements about them, some of which were highly negative and specific. The couple filed a lawsuit against the channel operators, alleging defamation and civil conspiracy based on these statements. Additional claims were made regarding comments about financial fraud, racist remarks, and accusations of criminal conduct and murder.The case was reviewed by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada. After the couple amended their complaint, the defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes. The district court granted the anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety, dismissing all claims, and subsequently awarded attorney fees to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed both the dismissal and the fee award.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It clarified that under the anti-SLAPP analysis, courts must independently evaluate each alleged statement to determine whether it is protected communication. The Court held that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint entirely, as defendants had not met their burden under the first prong for four specific statements (involving allegations of financial fraud, racist conduct, and murder). For the remaining statements, the defendants met their burden, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal, remanding for further proceedings on the four unprotected statements, and reversed the attorney fee award, instructing the district court to reconsider fees based on partial success. View "ROSENBROOK VS. LLOYD C/W 85175" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted in 2012 of attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14. As a result, he was classified as a Tier II sex offender, requiring him to register as a sex offender for 25 years under Nevada law. After being honorably discharged from probation in 2016, he was placed under lifetime supervision as mandated for certain sex offenses. Twelve years after his conviction, he petitioned for release from lifetime supervision, claiming he had satisfied statutory requirements: he had complied with registration obligations, had not been convicted of a subsequent offense for over ten years, and was assessed as low risk to reoffend.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, reviewed the petition. The State opposed release, arguing that compliance with registration requirements under NRS 176.0931(3) required completion of the full 25-year registration period for Tier II offenders. The district court accepted this interpretation and denied the petition solely on the basis that the appellant had not completed his entire registration term.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the relevant statutes de novo. The Court held that compliance with sex offender registration requirements under NRS 176.0931(3) does not require completion of the full statutory registration period outlined in NRS 179D.490. Instead, eligibility for release from lifetime supervision depends on conformance to registration requirements up to the time of petitioning. The statutes are not mutually exclusive; registration obligations continue even after release from lifetime supervision. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "DEL TORO VS STATE" on Justia Law

The case involved the shooting death of Jessica Griffin by Jesce Richt, who was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Richt and Griffin had a turbulent relationship, which included a history of domestic violence, protective orders, and threats exchanged via text and calls. In the days leading up to Griffin’s death, Richt repeatedly contacted Griffin, followed her movements, and was recorded on surveillance video entering the garage of Griffin’s mother’s house immediately before Griffin was shot multiple times. No firearm was found with Griffin. Richt fled and was later apprehended and charged.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County presided over the trial. Richt did not dispute shooting Griffin but claimed he acted in self-defense, arguing that Griffin had threatened him and was armed. However, Richt did not testify, and no independent evidence was introduced to support the self-defense claim. The court excluded evidence of Griffin’s threats, gun ownership, and communications, ruling that Richt failed to lay a proper foundation for a self-defense theory. The jury found Richt guilty of murder, and he pleaded guilty to the firearm charge.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed Richt’s appeal. The court held that a defendant cannot present a self-defense theory based solely on evidence of a victim’s character; foundational evidence of self-defense must first be introduced by other means. The court found no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of the proffered evidence, the admission of lay testimony regarding GPS tracking, or the omission of a jury instruction about reconvening for sentencing. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed Richt’s conviction. View "RICHT VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Nathan Chasing Horse on several felonies, including charges related to sexual offenses against a minor. This case received significant public and media attention. During both the renewed grand jury proceedings and the criminal trial, the real name of "S. Doe," an alleged victim who was a minor at the time of the offenses, was repeatedly disclosed in open court and in publicly filed documents. As the trial began, the district court issued a decorum order asking the media not to publish the victim’s full name, then clarified orally that this was a mandatory prohibition. The district court threatened contempt for noncompliance and ultimately excluded the Las Vegas Review-Journal and its journalists from the courtroom when they refused to agree to the restriction.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada imposed these restrictions and removals. The Review-Journal sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the orders constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint and violated their right of access to court proceedings. The district court justified its actions by citing Nevada statutes and Marsy's Law, although there was no evidence the victim had invoked these statutory protections, and the statutes themselves did not authorize prior restraint on the press.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada held that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by imposing a prior restraint on publication of the victim’s identity after that information was already public, and by excluding the journalists from the courtroom. The court found that the restrictions did not serve an interest of the highest order, were not narrowly tailored, and failed to apply evenhandedly. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, vacating the district court’s restrictions and exclusion order. View "LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, INC VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law