Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The appellant was indicted on multiple felony counts stemming from a 2018 shooting incident in Las Vegas. In 2022, he pleaded guilty to three charges and was sentenced to five years of probation with a suspended prison sentence. His probation included several conditions, such as abstaining from drugs and alcohol, avoiding firearms, completing treatment evaluations, and paying restitution and supervision fees. Over the course of his probation, he was repeatedly arrested for new offenses, including firearm possession and driving under the influence, and failed to comply with other probation requirements.Following each violation, the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, temporarily revoked his probation but reinstated it with additional conditions after he stipulated to the violations. In September 2023, further violations were reported, including living with a convicted felon and not completing required treatment. Another supplemental report in November 2023 alleged possible drug and firearm possession. After several hearings, the district court permanently revoked his probation and imposed the original prison sentence. The court determined he was not eligible for graduated sanctions under NRS 176A.510, reasoning that the statute did not apply retroactively to offenses committed before its effective date. Alternatively, the court held that even if the statute applied, his prior serious violations justified revocation.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case, applying de novo review to statutory interpretation and abuse of discretion to the revocation decision. The court held that the graduated sanctions scheme established by NRS 176A.510 and NRS 176A.630 applies prospectively to sentences imposed after July 1, 2020, regardless of when the underlying offense occurred. The court also held that district courts may consider a probationer’s full history, including prior nontechnical violations, when deciding whether revocation is warranted. The court affirmed the district court’s order and judgment. View "MCDANIEL VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a fatal incident following an argument among Katrina Carvalho, her sister Regina, and Regina’s boyfriend, Vintell Johnson. After dinner, the three argued in Johnson’s apartment complex parking lot. Witnesses testified that Johnson shoved both sisters, and Carvalho was seen pointing a gun at Johnson and another bystander. Moments later, gunshots were heard, and Johnson was fatally wounded. The prosecution charged Carvalho with first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. At trial, Carvalho’s defense was that another person, specifically Regina, may have fired the shots, and she highlighted weaknesses in the police investigation and the possibility of alternative suspects.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided over the second trial after a mistrial was declared in the first due to late evidence disclosure. During closing arguments, the district court repeatedly interrupted, admonished, and ultimately sanctioned defense counsel for arguing that the evidence equally implicated Regina. The court instructed the jury not to consider Regina’s guilt or speculate about her involvement, effectively preventing the defense from fully presenting its alternative-suspect theory. The jury found Carvalho guilty, and she was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 28 years.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the appeal. It held that the district court abused its discretion by foreclosing Carvalho’s opportunity to present an alternative-suspect defense, violating her due process right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. The court ruled that while a jury should not be asked to determine the guilt of someone other than the defendant, it is permissible for the defense to argue that reasonable doubt exists because the evidence supports an alternative suspect. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial before a different department. View "CARVALHO VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A former employee entered into a noncompete agreement with his employer, which barred him from engaging in similar business activities for 12 months within the company’s client base area after his employment ended in April 2024. Months later, the employer alleged that the former employee and his new business violated the agreement and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to enforce it. After the parties exchanged filings, the district court issued a TRO in June 2025, set to remain in effect indefinitely, and delayed the hearing on the preliminary injunction multiple times, citing new evidence related to a superseding noncompete agreement.The district court clarified the TRO’s scope, found the petitioners in contempt for violating it, and denied their motion to dissolve the TRO. The court eventually allowed the employer to amend its complaint to reflect the new agreement and later issued an amended TRO. A preliminary injunction was finally issued in April 2026. The petitioners challenged the original TRO by writ petition, arguing that it exceeded the 14-day limit allowed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and clarified that, under NRCP 65(b)(2), the 14-day time limit applies to TROs regardless of whether they are issued with or without notice. The court held that a TRO cannot be indefinite and must expire after 14 days unless properly extended for good cause or by consent. Because the district court’s TRO was indefinite and not properly extended, it automatically expired 14 days after issuance. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the writ of mandamus and directed the district court to declare the TRO expired as of June 23, 2025. View "HAVENS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A defendant pleaded guilty to attempted battery with substantial bodily harm, an offense that can be classified as either a gross misdemeanor or a felony. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend the lesser gross misdemeanor classification and a sentence of 225 days in county detention. The plea agreement included a clause stating that if the defendant failed to appear at any subsequent hearing, the State would be released from its promises under the agreement and could argue for any legal sentence. After pleading guilty, the defendant remained in custody but failed to appear at a continued sentencing hearing because he refused transport from jail, for nonmedical reasons.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County determined that the defendant’s failure to appear constituted a breach of the plea agreement. As a result, the court released the State from its obligations under the agreement, permitting the State to recommend a felony sentence. The State then argued for, and the court imposed, a sentence of 19 to 48 months in prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case and considered whether a failure-to-appear clause in a guilty plea agreement can be enforced against a defendant who remains in custody. The court held that such a clause cannot be enforced against in-custody defendants because they lack control over their appearance in court, and the State retains the means to produce them for hearings. The court vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing before a new judge, instructing the State to abide by its original sentencing recommendation. The sentencing judge remains free to determine the appropriate sentence. View "Stafford v. State" on Justia Law

A bus passenger, Vasken Ohanian, sued the bus driver Tamisha Davis and her employer MV Transportation, Inc. after being struck by a bus and allegedly suffering both physical and psychological injuries. Davis and MV retained an expert psychologist, Dr. Thomas Kinsora, to conduct a neuropsychological evaluation of Ohanian. Dr. Kinsora’s report criticized the evaluation by Ohanian’s own expert, Dr. Michael A. Elliott, and concluded that Ohanian’s symptoms were inconsistent with true traumatic injury. Ohanian requested disclosure of the raw psychological test data, including exam questions used by Dr. Kinsora, claiming this was necessary for effective cross-examination.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County ordered Davis and MV to disclose the raw test data to Ohanian’s counsel, subject to a protective order. Davis and MV partially complied but refused to disclose the exam questions, arguing that a newly-enacted regulation, NAC 641.234(3), prohibited such disclosure absent a specific state or federal law. The district court found that Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) 16.1 and NRS 50.305 constituted specific state laws requiring disclosure and repeatedly ordered compliance. Davis and MV continued to resist full disclosure and petitioned for a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court of Nevada.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether NAC 641.234(3) superseded the district court’s discovery order. The Court held that the Board of Psychological Examiners’ authority under NRS 641.100(2) extends only to regulating the practice of psychology, not court-ordered discovery. The Court found that district courts have broad discretion to control discovery under NRCP 16.1 and NRCP 35, including ordering disclosure of raw test data. It concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "DAVIS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

The Nevada Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 519 in 2023 to promote school district capital projects. This law included specific provisions requiring counties with populations between 52,500 and 57,500 to levy a property tax to fund these projects, with a default tax imposed if such a levy was not enacted by a certain date. At the time of the latest census, only Elko County fell within this population range, making it the sole county affected by these mandatory provisions. Elko County challenged the constitutionality of these sections, arguing that they constituted a local or special law targeting a single county rather than applying statewide.The First Judicial District Court, Carson City, reviewed Elko County’s complaint and granted summary judgment in its favor. The court found that the challenged sections were unconstitutional local or special laws because they singled out Elko County. The court also concluded that these provisions violated the Nevada Constitution’s requirement for a uniform system of county government and severed the offending sections from the rest of the legislation, allowing the remainder of the law to stand. Only the Nevada Legislature appealed this ruling to the next level.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the population-based provisions of Assembly Bill 519 were not rationally related to the law’s purpose and created an improper, narrowly tailored distinction that targeted Elko County. The Court held that these sections were local or special laws and violated Article 4, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution by impermissibly regulating county business. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the order granting summary judgment and held that the challenged sections of the law were unconstitutional. View "The Legislature of the State of Nevada v. Elko County" on Justia Law

A third party purchased a Las Vegas property in 2005 with a loan from Countrywide Home Loans, secured by a deed of trust. In 2012, Countrywide assigned the deed of trust to the Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM). That same year, after the borrower defaulted on homeowners’ association (HOA) payments, the HOA foreclosed, refusing Countrywide’s tender for the superpriority portion of its lien, and conveyed the property to 8933 Square Knot Trust (SKT). BNYM later initiated a federal quiet title action, resulting in a ruling that its deed of trust survived the HOA sale. After BNYM began foreclosure proceedings, SKT sent a statutory information request under NRS 107.200, did not receive a response, and sued BNYM in state court to stop foreclosure, seeking to quiet title and asserting additional claims, including under NRS 107.300 for BNYM’s failure to respond.The Eighth Judicial District Court initially dismissed SKT’s complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the dismissal of the NRS 107.300 claim, remanding for further proceedings. On remand, BNYM filed a second motion to dismiss, raising new arguments about statutory standing and subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted this motion and dismissed the claim.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRCP 12(g)(2) generally prohibits a party from filing a successive motion to dismiss based on grounds that could have been raised in an earlier motion, except for challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction, which may be raised at any time. The Court concluded that BNYM’s statutory standing argument was improperly raised in the second motion, but its subject-matter jurisdiction argument was permissible. The Court further held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction at the outset and retained it throughout. The order of dismissal was reversed and the matter remanded. View "8933 SQUARE KNOT TRUST VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON" on Justia Law

A patient sought treatment for back pain at a hospital and subsequently left partially paralyzed. He retained an attorney on a contingency fee basis to pursue claims for medical malpractice. The agreement set attorney fees at varying percentages, depending on when the case was resolved. The attorney then brought in a second law firm as co-counsel under a similar agreement. During the course of litigation, the patient’s attorneys amended the complaint to add an ordinary negligence claim alongside the professional negligence claims. The case settled for a confidential amount. After settlement, the attorneys claimed that the ordinary negligence claim removed the settlement from Nevada’s statutory cap on attorney fees in medical professional negligence cases, and they sought to collect higher fees under their agreements. The client disputed this, asserting that the statutory cap should apply.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County ruled in favor of the attorneys, finding that the ordinary negligence claim was not subject to the statutory cap on attorney fees and that the attorneys were entitled to the full contingency fee amounts. The court also found that the attorneys had properly perfected their attorney liens on the settlement proceeds, even though notice of the liens was sent after receipt of the first settlement check.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that, under the recent decision in Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas LLC, the substance of the patient’s ordinary negligence claim sounded in professional negligence, so the statutory cap on attorney fees applied. The Supreme Court further held that attorney liens must be perfected (by notice to the client) before the attorney receives settlement funds, so only the lien on the second settlement check was validly perfected. The court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "CASTILLO VS. ATKINSON WATKINS & HOFFMANN, LLP" on Justia Law

Several members of a police officers’ association, represented by their union, sought to prevent a city’s police oversight board from publicly posting police officers’ names and badge numbers on meeting notices, agendas, and in the board’s findings and recommendations. The officers and their association argued that various statutes, local ordinances, contractual agreements, and internal policies provided confidentiality protection for this information. They further contended that officers have a significant privacy interest in their names and badge numbers that outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, especially in the context of closed board meetings concerning alleged misconduct.The case was heard by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada. The police oversight board moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Nevada Open Meeting Law (OML) required disclosure of the names and that there was no legal authority prohibiting inclusion of badge numbers. The district court agreed with the board, holding that the OML required the disclosure of officer names and did not prohibit disclosure of badge numbers. The district court also concluded that the officers did not have a protectable privacy interest in this information and that contractual or other cited provisions did not override statutory disclosure requirements. The court granted the board’s motion and dismissed the case.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the OML requires the oversight board to include officers’ names on meeting agendas for closed meetings addressing character, alleged misconduct, or professional competence, and found no authority prohibiting the inclusion of badge numbers. The court further determined that the officers did not have a nontrivial privacy interest in their names or badge numbers, given that this information is already publicly available and subject to mandatory disclosure under existing law. View "LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOC. VS. LAS VEGAS METRO. POLICE DEP'T CITIZEN REVIEW BD." on Justia Law

The case involves a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff claimed to have sustained spinal injuries after being rear-ended by the defendant in 2019. The defendant admitted liability, leaving the extent and cause of the injuries, as well as the damages, for trial. During discovery, the defendant requested and received the plaintiff’s medical records from a prior, similar 2017 car accident, which the plaintiff produced. The defendant’s expert witnesses relied on these 2017 records to argue that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the 2019 accident.At the Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiff moved to exclude the 2017 records on grounds of irrelevance and lack of proper authentication, also noting the defendant’s failure to list them in pretrial disclosures. The court agreed, excluding the records for not meeting Nevada’s statutory authentication requirements under NRS 52.325 and for incomplete disclosure, and also barred related expert testimony. The court further excluded evidence of the plaintiff’s medical liens, citing the collateral source rule, and ultimately a jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $3.8 million in damages. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment, and granted attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial. It held that NRS 52.325 is not the exclusive method of authenticating medical records when those records are produced in discovery by a party, and that the general authentication standard under NRS 52.015 applies. The exclusion of the 2017 records and related expert testimony was error, as was the exclusion of medical lien evidence based on a misapplication of the collateral source rule. The court found the defendant’s disclosure error to be harmless and directed that a new trial be held. The awards of attorney fees and costs were vacated. View "GUTIERREZ-ZACATENCO VS. HERRERA" on Justia Law