Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A married couple had a child in Las Vegas, Nevada. Shortly after the child’s birth, the mother and child traveled to Canada, initially intending a temporary visit for a funeral. Their stay in Canada was extended unexpectedly due to circumstances including a home repair in Nevada and temporary employment, but the mother continued regular communications with the father and intended to return. During the extended stay, the couple’s relationship deteriorated. The mother filed for custody in a Canadian court, and the father, also in Canada, initiated a Hague Convention proceeding seeking the child’s return to Nevada. The Canadian court determined that the child was a habitual resident of Canada and denied the return request. The father appealed unsuccessfully and participated in the Canadian custody proceedings, contesting jurisdiction.After the failed Hague petition, the father filed for divorce, child custody, and child support in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. That court denied his motions, determining it lacked jurisdiction since significant proceedings were already underway in Canada and concluding Nevada was not the child’s home state. The father appealed, arguing that the district court wrongly declined jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the matter. It held that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the child’s absence from Nevada was temporary; thus, Nevada was the child’s home state for jurisdictional purposes when the custody action was filed. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order, concluding that Nevada did have home state jurisdiction. However, due to the Canadian court’s pending custody proceedings and the Hague determination, the Nevada court should consider whether to defer jurisdiction to Canada. The Supreme Court of Nevada remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to attempt communication with the Canadian court and to allow briefing on the most appropriate forum before determining whether to decline jurisdiction. View "Gill v. Gill" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, following the fatal stabbing of his former girlfriend. The incident occurred after the defendant, who was intoxicated, engaged in a confrontation with the victim and her husband at their residence. The defendant admitted to stabbing the victim, and the victim died from her wounds. Law enforcement apprehended the defendant shortly after the incident.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. During jury selection, the defendant raised a Batson challenge, arguing that the State used peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. The district court denied the challenge at step one, finding insufficient evidence to raise an inference of discrimination. The defense also moved to exclude testimony from a substitute coroner, challenged the admission of a transcript of a 911 call, and disputed limitations placed on their expert's testimony about intoxication. The district court allowed the substitute coroner to testify to her own opinions based on photographs and hospital records, permitted the jury to use the 911 call transcript as a listening aid, and limited but did not exclude the expert's testimony.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the Batson challenge at step one, as there was insufficient evidence of discriminatory purpose. The court found no Confrontation Clause violation in the substitute coroner’s testimony, as her opinion was based on independent review of admissible evidence. The court held that the limitation on the defense expert's testimony was erroneous under Nevada law but was harmless error. The court also found no abuse of discretion in providing the 911 call transcript to the jury and determined that no cumulative error warranted reversal. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the conviction. View "MATADAMAS-SERRANO (RUBEN) VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A business agreement was made in early 2020 for the rental of a yacht for an event. The agreement involved a payment of $18,280, which was to cover a deposit and a down payment toward the rental fee. The event was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the party that made the payment requested a refund. The yacht provider did not return the funds. The party seeking the refund sued under several theories, including unjust enrichment and breach of contract.After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo, and the matter proceeded under Nevada’s Short Trial Program. A short trial judge rendered a proposed judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this proposed judgment, but the short trial judge, after consulting with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, ruled on the objection and later denied the defendant’s NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, apparently approving the short trial judge’s proposed judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a short trial judge has authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed judgment and post-judgment NRCP 59 motions. The court held that under the plain language of NSTR 3(d), only the district court—not a short trial judge—may review and adjudicate objections to proposed judgments and NRCP 59 motions. The court found that the short trial judge exceeded her authority by ruling on these matters. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s judgment and the short trial judge’s post-judgment orders, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VEGAS AQUA, LLC VS. JUPITOR CORP." on Justia Law

A journalist requested internal affairs records from the City of Reno related to a former police officer, relying on the Nevada Public Records Act. After the City denied these requests several times, the journalist filed a petition with the Second Judicial District Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure. Instead of following the standard process that would have required the City to receive notice and an opportunity to respond before any court order, the journalist specifically asked for, and the district court granted, an ex parte alternative writ of mandamus. This writ ordered the City to either produce the records or appear at a hearing to show cause, but the district court did not explain why ex parte action was justified.Following the issuance of the ex parte writ, the City was served and attended the hearing, where it secured a continuance in order to seek relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada. The City then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that ex parte writs should only be issued in emergency or exceptional circumstances, and that the district court had erred by granting such relief without explanation.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that before issuing an ex parte alternative writ of mandamus—particularly in the context of public records requests under the Nevada Public Records Act—a district court must make specific findings as to why regular notice and an opportunity for the opposing party to be heard would be inadequate. The court clarified that ex parte relief is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is necessary and routine procedures are insufficient. Because the district court did not make such findings in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that it had manifestly abused its discretion and ordered the district court to vacate the ex parte alternative writ. View "CITY OF RENO VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A cable company employee discovered the appellant at his apartment with blood on his face, neck, and clothing, requesting police assistance after an incident involving his girlfriend. When officers arrived, they found the victim, Debra Shirron, dead in bed with visible injuries. The appellant was charged with first-degree murder of a victim 60 years of age or older and abuse of an older/vulnerable person resulting in substantial bodily or mental harm or death. At trial, the appellant claimed legal insanity and self-defense, citing a recent traumatic brain injury and consumption of marijuana brownies prior to the incident. Expert testimony presented conflicting views on whether the appellant’s delusions and violent behavior were caused by his brain injury, voluntary intoxication, or a combination of both.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. During the proceedings, the court allowed a replacement medical examiner to testify to possible causes of death beyond blunt force trauma, including asphyxiation and strangulation, without prior notice to the defense. The appellant objected to jury instruction 17, which addressed voluntary intoxication in relation to the insanity defense, arguing it conflicted with the legal definition of insanity. The objection was preserved, but the court overruled it. The jury convicted the appellant on both counts.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The Court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication could not be considered as part of an insanity defense unless it was not a contributing factor, which contradicted statutory law. The error was not harmless, as it likely had a substantial effect on the verdict. The Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. It also clarified that expert testimony at trial must be disclosed in accordance with statutory requirements. View "AUBRY VS. STATE" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to an incident where the defendant, after brandishing a machete and robbing a 76-year-old man of his car, led police on a dangerous high-speed chase. He drove on the wrong side of major roads and ignored traffic signals before being apprehended. At the time, he had deliberately stopped taking prescribed mental health medication. He was charged with robbery of an elderly person, grand larceny of a motor vehicle, and driver evading or failing to stop for a police signal in a manner endangering others.A jury in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County found him not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for the robbery and grand larceny counts but guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) for the driver-evading count. Following the verdicts, the district court ordered a mental health evaluation and held a hearing pursuant to NRS 175.539. The defendant argued that the court was required to commit him to a forensic mental health facility for treatment before sentencing on the GBMI conviction, or at minimum, impose probation conditioned on such treatment. The district court rejected this argument, concluding that the statutes did not require commitment before sentencing and that it retained discretion to impose a prison sentence for the GBMI conviction, with treatment during incarceration and civil commitment following release if necessary.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that Nevada statutes do not specify the sequence of civil commitment and criminal sentencing in cases with both NGRI acquittals and a GBMI conviction. Therefore, the district court retains discretion to sentence a defendant to prison for a GBMI conviction, with appropriate mental health treatment during incarceration, and to order evaluation for civil commitment after release. Probation is not mandatory in split-verdict cases. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "SILVANUS VS. STATE" on Justia Law

Two workers filed a putative class action against several contractors and subcontractors, alleging that they performed work on public works projects and were not paid overtime at the prevailing wage rates required by Nevada law. Their lawsuit sought damages equal to the difference between what they were paid and the higher amounts allegedly owed under Nevada’s prevailing-wage statute for both regular and overtime work. The plaintiffs also asserted, in the alternative, that they could recover these amounts under Nevada’s more general wage-and-hour provisions or as third-party beneficiaries of the relevant public works contracts. The complaint did not specify which public works projects were involved or allege that the plaintiffs had pursued administrative remedies through the Nevada Labor Commissioner.The case was first reviewed by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs had not alleged exhaustion of the administrative remedies required under Nevada’s prevailing-wage law. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that there was no private right of action for wage claims under the prevailing-wage statute and that the alternative claims were derivative and failed for the same reason. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, finding that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that NRS Chapter 338, Nevada’s prevailing-wage statute, does not provide a private right of action to employees outside the administrative process it creates. Claims for violation of the statute must first be brought through the administrative mechanisms with the Labor Commissioner, and cannot be circumvented by recasting them under other wage-and-hour laws or as third-party beneficiary claims. The court also found no error in denying leave to amend the complaint. View "STUCKEY VS. APEX MATERIALS, LLC" on Justia Law

Egger Enterprises, LLC acquired a ranch in Humboldt County, Nevada, which had previously shifted from flood to center pivot irrigation systems. This conversion left portions of water rights unused, and Egger sought to use the leftover water by acquiring adjacent public land through federal Desert Land Entry applications. Administrative delays between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Nevada’s Division of Water Resources (NDWR) prolonged this process. Meanwhile, a nonparty challenged Egger’s applications, asserting that Egger had not used portions of its water rights for over 16 years, and thus, those rights were forfeited.The State Engineer found, by clear and convincing evidence, that certain water rights had not been put to beneficial use for five or more consecutive years and declared them forfeited. Egger petitioned for judicial review in the Sixth Judicial District Court, which initially reversed and remanded for lack of proper notice. Once proper notice was sent and Egger requested extensions of time, the State Engineer granted one extension but denied a subsequent request, ultimately issuing a declaration of forfeiture. Egger again sought judicial review, but the district court denied relief, finding the State Engineer’s decision supported by substantial evidence and holding that Egger was not entitled to equitable relief.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of Egger’s petition. The court held that the State Engineer is not required to make findings on every statutory factor when considering an extension request under NRS 534.090(3)—only those relevant to the case. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the forfeiture decision and that Egger was not entitled to equitable relief, as there was no beneficial use of the water within the statutory period, nor any estoppel or error by the State Engineer. View "EGGER ENTER., LLC VS. STATE ENGINEER" on Justia Law

A mining company sought to secure water rights in the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek basin to support a mining operation. The Nevada State Engineer issued a decision concerning the relinquishment of groundwater rights by the Nevada Division of State Lands (NDSL), which effectively reduced the amount of water available for future appropriation in the basin. The mining company did not hold any established water rights in the basin but had filed several applications for future rights and had objected to NDSL’s filings. The State Engineer did not notify the company of his decision, and the company only learned of it months later through a third party.After learning of the decision, the company petitioned the Fourth Judicial District Court for judicial review, claiming the relinquishment adversely affected its interests and the prospects of its water rights applications. The State Engineer moved to dismiss, arguing that the company lacked standing and that the petition was untimely. The district court agreed, finding that the company was not an aggrieved party under NRS 533.450(1) and had no standing, and also found the petition was untimely.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court determined that under NRS 533.450(1), unless a decision is made pursuant to certain enumerated statutes, the party seeking review must have a personal or property right affected by the challenged decision. The mining company had no such existing right; its interest was speculative and based only on pending applications. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the petition for lack of standing and did not reach the issues of timeliness or equitable relief. The holding clarifies that only parties with a personal or property right affected by a State Engineer’s decision may seek judicial review under the relevant statutory provision. View "Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc. v. Thorson" on Justia Law

The case involves a civil lawsuit in which the respondent alleges that the appellant sexually assaulted her in a Las Vegas hotel room in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The respondent claims that after being drugged, her hand was covered in lotion and she was forced to masturbate the appellant. She and other plaintiffs seek damages for various torts, including battery and assault, arguing that their claims are timely due to a Nevada statute that eliminates limitations periods for civil actions arising from sexual assault as defined under state law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the case and was faced with the question of whether the alleged conduct—specifically, forced masturbation without genital or anal intrusion—constitutes sexual assault under Nevada’s criminal statutes. The appellant moved to dismiss, asserting that the conduct in question does not meet the statutory definition of sexual assault and, therefore, the limitations period had expired. The federal district court certified this question to the Supreme Court of Nevada for resolution.The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the certified question by interpreting the relevant statutes, NRS 200.364(9) and NRS 200.366. The court held that, under the plain language of these statutes, "sexual penetration" requires an intrusion into a genital or anal opening, whether by a body part or an object. The court concluded that forced masturbation, in the absence of such intrusion, does not fall within the statutory definition of sexual assault. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, clarifying that this specific conduct is not considered sexual assault under the relevant state law. View "Cosby v. Leslie" on Justia Law