Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A Nevada resident, Virginia Pass, allegedly suffered injuries and ultimately died after a Care@Home C7000 in-home medical alert system failed to alert emergency services following her fall. The device was purchased from Medical Guardian, a Pennsylvania-based reseller authorized by Essence USA, Inc., a New Jersey corporation that distributes products manufactured by Essence SmartCare Ltd. Pass’s estate and her six children, some residing in Nevada and others in different states, filed suit against Essence USA and Medical Guardian in Nevada. The record did not establish where, how, or by whom the Care@Home device was acquired, only that it was used in Nevada.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, dismissed Essence USA for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding Essence USA had insufficient contacts with Nevada. Morgan, representing Pass’s estate, was permitted to amend the complaint and conduct limited jurisdictional discovery. The evidence showed that Essence USA attended the Consumer Electronic Show (CES) in Las Vegas to promote its products to resellers, and had entered into agreements with Medical Guardian authorizing resale in the United States and Canada. However, there was no evidence of direct sales or marketing to Nevada consumers, nor confirmation that more than one product ever reached Nevada. The district court denied reconsideration and certified its dismissal as final for appeal.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the dismissal. The court held that, under Nevada’s adoption of the pure stream-of-commerce test for specific personal jurisdiction, a nonresident defendant must introduce products into the stream of commerce with the expectation of a regular flow to Nevada. The plaintiffs failed to show more than a single isolated instance of a product reaching Nevada or any meaningful connection between their claims and Essence USA’s in-state contacts at CES. Thus, Essence USA was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada. View "MORGAN VS. ESSENCE USA, INC." on Justia Law

An architect licensed in California, through his firm, provided architectural services and held himself out as an architect in Nevada without obtaining a Nevada license. The Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design regulates such activities in Nevada. The Board issued charges against the architect for violating statutes prohibiting unlicensed practice and advertising as an architect without a Nevada license. Following an administrative hearing, the Board found violations and imposed a $20,000 civil penalty.After the Board’s decision, the architect petitioned for judicial review in the Eighth Judicial District Court. The district court remanded the matter to the Board to determine whether the violations implicated any common law issue entitling him to a jury trial. The Board held a second hearing and determined no such right existed. Upon renewed petition for judicial review, the district court denied the architect's petition, prompting an appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada considered whether Article 1, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial in administrative agency proceedings involving civil penalties where the statutory violations lack a common law analog. The Court held that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to administrative proceedings imposing civil penalties for statutory violations that are not sufficiently analogous to common law actions for which a jury trial was historically available. The Court concluded that none of the statutes violated—regarding unlicensed practice, misrepresentation, or civil penalties—was sufficiently analogous to common law causes of action such as fraudulent misrepresentation, professional negligence, or action in debt. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying the petition for judicial review. View "HAGEN VS. HARRISON" on Justia Law

The appellant participated in a robbery of a Metro PCS store in Nevada, during which one person held an employee at gunpoint while another took money from the register. He was charged with multiple felonies, including robbery, burglary, and kidnapping with a deadly weapon. Eventually, he pleaded guilty to robbery in exchange for the State making no sentencing recommendation. At sentencing, the district court imposed probation and, over the State’s objection, included a “drop-down” provision in the judgment that would allow the appellant to withdraw his robbery plea and plead to a lesser offense if he successfully completed probation. This provision was not part of the plea agreement.Following sentencing, the case was reassigned to a different judge in the Eighth Judicial District Court. After completing probation, the appellant sought to enforce the drop-down provision by withdrawing his guilty plea to robbery and pleading to the lesser offense. The successor judge granted him an honorable discharge from probation but denied his request to withdraw the robbery plea. The court also amended the judgment of conviction to remove the drop-down provision, finding that its inclusion was a legal error.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the successor judge had the authority to remove the drop-down provision. The court expressly overruled prior precedent to the extent it suggested a jurisdictional bar on a successor judge revisiting a predecessor’s ruling in the same case. Instead, the court held that such authority is governed by the law-of-the-case doctrine and its exceptions. The court determined that the drop-down provision was clearly erroneous because it violated separation-of-powers principles, and its enforcement would result in manifest injustice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the amended judgment of conviction, holding that removal of the drop-down provision was not an abuse of discretion. View "CASTILLO VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A truck driver was injured after slipping on a substance believed to be gasoline at a self-service fueling station owned by a truck stop operator. After his fall, the driver reported the spill to an employee, who then applied an absorbent to the area. The truck stop operator maintained a log for gasoline spills of one gallon or more. The driver sued the truck stop operator for negligence and later included the janitorial service provider as a defendant.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, finding that the driver did not provide evidence that an employee caused the spill or that it had been present long enough to establish actual or constructive notice. The district court also found insufficient evidence to support a mode-of-operation theory, reasoning that the driver failed to show that self-service fueling was a new merchandising technique or that employees traditionally dispensed fuel in Nevada. The Nevada Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada clarified that it explicitly declines to adopt the mode-of-operation theory of premises liability. Instead, Nevada law requires consideration of whether the alleged hazardous condition was reasonably foreseeable, regardless of the business model. Constructive notice can be established by showing that the risk was reasonably foreseeable, either by the length of time the hazard existed or by evidence of general foreseeability. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the negligence claim and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this clarified standard. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment regarding the negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention claim, as the driver did not challenge that portion of the decision. View "MOORE VS. PRIMADONNA CO., LLC" on Justia Law

A woman was stopped by a police officer who, during the encounter, took her personal phone and used his own device to photograph intimate materials found on it. The Sparks Police Department investigated this officer for the incident and interviewed the woman as part of their inquiry. Following these events, the woman submitted public records requests to both the City of Reno and the City of Sparks under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA), seeking documents related to her case, including police reports, body camera footage, and internal communications referencing her name.Both Reno and Sparks denied most aspects of her request, citing concerns about ongoing litigation. The woman then petitioned the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County for a writ of mandamus to compel the disclosure of records. The district court consolidated the cases and granted the writ in part, ordering that documents directly involving the woman be disclosed, subject to redactions. The court specifically relied on her status as an alleged victim in reaching this decision, while otherwise finding that the government's interests in nondisclosure outweighed the public's interest in access for records not directly involving her. Sparks appealed the order.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court's grant of mandamus for abuse of discretion. Applying the established government-interest and privacy balancing tests under the NPRA, the Supreme Court held that neither test permits consideration of the individual characteristics or status of the requester. The court emphasized that the balancing tests concern the public’s interest, not an individual’s interest. Because the district court based disclosure solely on the requester’s victim status, the Supreme Court found this to be an abuse of discretion and reversed the district court’s order. View "CITY OF SPARKS VS. BLUTH" on Justia Law

A man entered a gun shop in Las Vegas seeking to sell two firearms, including a Glock 30 handgun equipped with an auto-sear device, which converts the weapon into a fully automatic machine gun. The store employee recognized the illegal modification and alerted the store owner, who then reported the incident to law enforcement and provided video surveillance. As a result, the man was charged with several offenses, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a machine gun, and violating regulations regarding modified semiautomatic firearms. A jury convicted him on these counts, and he later pleaded guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County entered convictions on all counts and imposed a prison sentence for possession of a machine gun, with lesser concurrent terms for the other offenses. The defendant appealed, raising constitutional and procedural challenges, including arguments that Nevada’s firearm statutes were unconstitutional and that his convictions for both possession of a machine gun and a modified semiautomatic firearm violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Nevada’s prohibitions on machine guns and modified semiautomatic firearms do not violate either the federal or state constitutions, as these weapons are considered dangerous and unusual and thus unprotected by the Second Amendment or the analogous Nevada provision. However, the court found that convicting the defendant for both possession of a machine gun and possession of a modified semiautomatic firearm based on the same conduct constituted double jeopardy, as the elements of the latter are entirely subsumed within the former. The court reversed the conviction for violating regulations regarding modified semiautomatic firearms, affirmed the remaining convictions, and remanded the case for entry of an amended judgment. View "ARMSTRONG VS. STATE" on Justia Law

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