Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Lazario Ruiz was a City of North Las Vegas police officer. While off duty, Appellant got into an argument with his brother and a business associate. An investigation was launched. Based on what it perceived to be a lack of truthfulness and unprofessional conduct, the North Las Vegas Police Department (NLVPD) terminated Appellantâs employment. Following his termination and pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the police Union filed a grievance on behalf of Appellant. The Unionâs grievance asserted several specific violations of Appellantâs rights from the interview the NLVPD conducted. The grievance was sent to arbitration pursuant to the CBA. After a hearing, the arbitrator concluded that the NLVPD had just cause to terminate Appellant. The Union then assigned its right to challenge the arbitratorâs decision back to Appellant, and Appellant individually petitioned the district court to vacate the decision. The City moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellantâs right to challenge the arbitratorâs decision was not assignable. The City argued that Appellant lacked standing to bring a lawsuit since it was the Union who was a party to the arbitration, and not Appellant. The district court dismissed Appellantâs case, and Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. After a careful review of the CBA, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellant did have standing to sue the City in district court following arbitration. The Court reversed the district courtâs judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 1990, Appellant Robert Stockmeier pled guilty to sexually assaulting a nine-year-old boy. Appellantâs pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) stated that Appellant used a weapon during the course of the offense, but the record at trial did not reflect that a weapon was used. Appellant objected to the statement pertaining to the weapon in his PSI. The sentencing court noted Appellantâs objections to the PSI, but did not rule on them. The court then sentenced Appellant to two consecutive life sentences, to which Appellant did not directly appeal. Instead, Appellant filed two post-conviction petitions in an attempt to set the PSIâs record straight. At a hearing, the district court stated that it believed that any inaccuracies in the PSI should be corrected. The State and Appellant conferred to adjust the PSIâs wording to better reflect the facts of his case, but they could not agree on the terms. The court stepped in to make the necessary amendments to the PSI, but refused the make the changes pertaining to use of a weapon. Years later, Appellant was eligible for parole. The Parole Board denied Appellantâs parole based in part on the factually incorrect PSI. Appellant petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the entire record. The Supreme Court held that because Nevada lacked a statutory or administrative process by which a prisoner may challenge alleged inaccuracies in a PSI, the prisoner must petition the district court for relief. If the matter cannot be resolved at the district court, then a prisoner may petition the Supreme Court. In Appellantâs case, the Court found that neither the appellate court nor the Parole Board had authority to amend Appellantâs PSI. Only after the PSI is set as accurate can the Parole Board rely on it to make future determinations of a prisonerâs parole. Therefore, the Court remanded Appellantâs case for further proceedings.

In May, 2008, Real-Party-In-Interest Roxanne Cagnina arrived at Centennial Hills Hospital for medical treatment. During her stay, she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a member of the hospital staff. She brought a civil suit against the staff member and his employer, Petitioner Valley Health System. During discovery, Cagnina sought to have Valley Health produce records of other incidents or complaints of improper conduct by employees or staff or others. Valley Health objected, and Cagnina filed a motion to compel a response. The motion was heard before a discovery commissioner who recommended to the trial court that Cagninaâs motion be granted. The court affirmed the commissionerâs recommendation, but Valley Health still objected. It sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, arguing that the records were privileged, and that the district court erred by affirming the discovery commissionerâs recommendation to hand over the records. On review, the Supreme Court found that Valley Health failed to raise its privilege argument before the discovery commissioner. The Court dismissed Valley Healthâs application for a writ of mandamus, and affirmed the decision of the lower court.

In 1985, Appellant Eugene Donlan was sentenced to probation by a California court for lewd and lascivious behavior involving a child. He was required to register as a sex offender. In 2005, Appellant moved to Nevada. Appellant had regularly registered as a sex offender since moving to Nevada. Almost 25 years after his conviction, California terminated Appellantâs registration requirement. Appellant then petitioned the district court in Nevada to terminate his registration requirement here. After a hearing, the district court denied Appellantâs petition. Appellant argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in denying his petition. The Supreme Court concluded that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Nevada to disregard its own mechanism for protecting its citizens just because California terminated its registration requirement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district courtâs order that denied Appellantâs petition to stop registering as a sex offender in Nevada.