Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Clark County, Brian Caperonis was killed by other inmates. His father, William Joseph Caperonis, acting individually and as the special administrator of Brian’s estate, filed a civil complaint against the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and several of its employees. The claims included civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, and various negligence claims related to Brian’s death.NDOC moved to dismiss the state law negligence claims, arguing that the estate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243. NDOC asserted that, as the estate stands in the shoes of the decedent, it was required to file an administrative claim before pursuing litigation. William opposed, contending that the exhaustion requirement applied only to living inmates and not to the estates of deceased prisoners. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied NDOC’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plain language of the statutes and the relevant administrative regulations did not extend the exhaustion requirement to estates of deceased inmates.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed NDOC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the administrative exhaustion requirements in NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 do not apply to the estate of a deceased prisoner. The court reasoned that the statutory language is limited to “a person who is or was” in NDOC custody and does not contemplate survival claims by estates. The court also found that the administrative regulations provide no mechanism for an estate to pursue such remedies. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied NDOC’s writ petition, affirming the district court’s decision. View "Department of Corrections v. District Court" on Justia Law

Two police associations negotiated collective bargaining agreements with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City of Las Vegas to designate certain dates—specifically Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth—as paid holidays in addition to those recognized by Nevada statute. These agreements provided for increased holiday pay on those days. The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), which is responsible for collecting retirement contributions based on employees’ regular compensation, refused to collect contributions on the additional holiday pay for these negotiated holidays, arguing that only holidays listed in Nevada’s statutory list qualified.The associations filed an action for declaratory relief in the Eighth Judicial District Court, seeking to compel PERS to collect retirement contributions on the negotiated holiday pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the associations, ordering PERS to collect the appropriate employer contributions for holiday pay on Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth. PERS appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case de novo, as it involved questions of statutory interpretation and no disputed facts. The court held that, under the plain language of NRS 288.150(2)(d) and NRS 286.025, PERS is required to collect retirement contributions on all holiday pay negotiated in collective bargaining agreements, not just those for statutory holidays. The court also determined that Juneteenth became a legal holiday in Nevada in 2021 following the federal declaration, and contributions for that holiday are required retroactively to 2022, when it was included in the agreements. The court rejected PERS’s arguments regarding its authority and potential conflicts with the Internal Revenue Code. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "PUB. EMPLOYEES' RET. SYS. OF NEV. VS. LAS VEGAS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASS'N" on Justia Law

A deputy marshal who worked at the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County received a written reprimand following an internal investigation. The Clark County Deputy Marshals Association, on his behalf, sought a hearing under Nevada statutes that provide procedural protections to peace officers, arguing that deputy marshals are employees of Clark County and thus entitled to such protections. The core dispute centered on whether deputy marshals serving the court are employees of the county or of the court itself.The Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board determined that deputy marshals are employees of the court, not the county, and therefore not entitled to the protections sought. The appellants then filed a complaint in the district court seeking a declaration that deputy marshals are county employees. All Clark County district judges recused themselves, and the case was assigned to a judge from the Seventh Judicial District Court. That court granted summary judgment to Clark County and the Eighth Judicial District Court, concluding that deputy marshals are employees of the court because their duties are judicial in nature and directly support court operations, rather than general law enforcement functions.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that deputy marshals serving at the Eighth Judicial District Court are employees of the court, not Clark County. The Court reasoned that the judiciary has inherent constitutional authority to employ personnel necessary for its functions, including courtroom security and order, and that deputy marshals’ duties are fundamentally judicial. The Court also held that, although deputy marshals have peace officer powers, they are not part of a law enforcement agency and are not entitled to the procedural protections under NRS Chapter 289. The order granting summary judgment for the respondents was affirmed. View "CLARK CNTY. DEPUTY MARSHALS ASS'N. VS. CLARK CNTY." on Justia Law

A developer entered into an agreement with a city to develop a downtown district, which included provisions for three large signs identifying the area as "Reno's Neon Line District." The city council approved the agreement and adopted it by ordinance. A nonprofit organization dedicated to scenic preservation objected, arguing that the signs were actually billboards prohibited by city code and that the developers lacked the necessary interest to enter into the agreement.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County partially granted the nonprofit’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found that the nonprofit had standing to challenge the agreement. It ruled that one sign (the archway sign) was a permissible area identification sign, but determined that the other two signs (the gas station sign and the cemetery sign) were, respectively, an on-premises advertising display and a billboard, both in violation of city code. The court severed the provisions for these two signs from the agreement and issued a writ preventing their construction.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether the nonprofit had standing and whether the district court properly reclassified the signs. The Supreme Court held that the city’s classification of the signs as area identification signs was entitled to a presumption of validity and that substantial evidence supported this classification. The court further held that the nonprofit lacked standing to seek writ relief because it did not have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in the agreement, as the signs were not billboards and thus not covered by a prior settlement agreement with the city. The court also found that the nonprofit had waived any argument for representational standing. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RENO REAL ESTATE DEVEL., LLC VS. SCENIC NEVADA, INC." on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted in 2016 of conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary, robbery, and first-degree kidnapping, receiving concurrent sentences including 8 to 20 years for robbery and 5 years to life for kidnapping. In November 2022, the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners assessed him as a high risk to reoffend, denied parole, and scheduled his next hearing for January 2025. The petitioner requested a reassessment, arguing the risk level was incorrect. The Board found an error, reassessed him as moderate risk, and held a new hearing in April 2023, but again denied parole and rescheduled the next hearing for November 2025, nine months later than originally set.The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, arguing that the Board unlawfully punished him for seeking reconsideration by delaying his next parole hearing. He claimed this delay was vindictive and violated his due process rights, relying on the presumption of vindictiveness established in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), and its progeny.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada held that the presumption of vindictiveness may generally arise in parole proceedings if the Board, upon reconsideration, extends the time before a prisoner may be considered for parole again. However, the court concluded that the presumption does not apply when the Board corrects its own error without prompting from an outside tribunal. The court further found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual vindictiveness. The Board acted within its statutory discretion in scheduling the next hearing, and the petition for writ relief was denied. View "Stewart v. Board of Parole Commissioners" on Justia Law

Baker Ranches, Inc., a Nevada corporation, holds decreed water rights in Baker and Lehman Creeks, which flow through Great Basin National Park. In 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) received a permit for a nonconsumptive instream flow in Baker Creek, requiring that the water not be removed and the full natural flow exit the park undiverted. Baker Ranches alleged that, since 2016, the NPS denied it permission to remove obstructions and allowed rock dams to be constructed, diverting water into caves and interfering with its water rights. While related federal litigation was ongoing, Baker Ranches requested the State Engineer to investigate these alleged violations.The State Engineer, after site visits and correspondence, decided in 2021 to hold the investigation in abeyance pending the outcome of the federal litigation. Baker Ranches then petitioned the Seventh Judicial District Court in White Pine County for judicial review or a writ of mandamus. The district court denied the writ but granted judicial review, finding the State Engineer’s decision to suspend the investigation arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the State Engineer to complete the investigation and render a final decision.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada considered whether the State Engineer had the authority to hold the investigation in abeyance and whether such a decision was subject to judicial review. The court held that the State Engineer possesses discretionary powers, including the implied authority to pause investigations pending related litigation. The court further determined that the State Engineer’s decision to suspend the investigation was interlocutory, not a final order, and therefore not subject to judicial review. As a result, the Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s order granting Baker Ranches’ petition for judicial review. View "SULLIVAN, P.E. VS. BAKER RANCHES, INC." on Justia Law

Steve Eggleston sued Clark County and Georgina Stuart, a social worker, alleging violations of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Eggleston claimed that Stuart coerced him into signing temporary guardianship papers for his children during an ongoing child abuse/neglect investigation by threatening that his children would be permanently removed from his care if he did not comply. Stuart and Clark County moved for summary judgment, arguing that their actions were protected by qualified immunity and discretionary-act immunity. The district court denied their motion.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada denied the motion for summary judgment, leading Stuart and Clark County to file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Stuart's conduct violated clearly established law and whether her actions were protected by discretionary-act immunity.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and granted the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Stuart was entitled to qualified immunity on Eggleston's substantive and procedural due process claims because her conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. The court also held that Stuart was entitled to discretionary-act immunity on Eggleston's IIED claim, as her actions involved individual judgment and were based on considerations of social policy. The court directed the district court to vacate the order denying summary judgment and to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of Stuart and Clark County. View "Clark County v. District Court" on Justia Law

Nikos Sharp was charged with several criminal offenses related to child abuse or neglect following an investigation by the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS). Sharp sought information from DFS reports involving the alleged victim, E.S., which included the identities of individuals who reported the abuse. The district court ordered DFS to disclose this information despite DFS's objections.The district court reviewed the reports in camera and initially released redacted versions to Sharp. Sharp then requested unredacted versions, including the identities of the reporters. The district court granted this request, and DFS's motion for reconsideration was denied. DFS subsequently sought relief through an original writ petition.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that NRS 432B.290(4) provides a limited privilege for reporter identities, protecting them if DFS determines that disclosure would harm an investigation or the life or safety of any person. The court found that this limited privilege did not apply in this case because DFS had not made such a determination. Consequently, the district court did not err in ordering the disclosure of the reporter identities. The Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petition, affirming the district court's decision. View "Clark County Department of Family Services v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association and the Las Vegas Peace Officers Association negotiated additional holidays with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City of Las Vegas. These holidays included Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth. The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) refused to collect increased retirement contributions on the holiday pay for these additional holidays, arguing that they were not included in Nevada's statutory list of holidays.The Associations filed a declaratory relief action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, seeking to compel PERS to collect the appropriate contributions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Associations, directing PERS to collect the contributions for the additional holiday pay.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that PERS is required to collect additional retirement contributions for the increased wages earned on the negotiated holidays. The court concluded that the plain text of NRS 288.150(2)(d) supports the Associations' authority to negotiate holidays and that PERS must comply with these agreements. The court also determined that Juneteenth became a legal holiday in Nevada in 2021 following a presidential declaration and that PERS must collect contributions for this holiday retroactively to 2022. Additionally, the court found that the Associations have the statutory power to negotiate holiday pay for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and PERS is obligated to collect contributions for these holidays as well.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, requiring PERS to collect the appropriate employer contributions for the additional holiday pay as negotiated by the Associations. View "PUB. EMPLOYEES' RET. SYS. OF NEV. VS. LAS VEGAS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASS'N" on Justia Law

The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) removed two minors from their parents' care due to domestic violence and placed them with their paternal aunt. DFS provided rental assistance to the aunt for two months until she became a licensed foster parent and began receiving foster care subsidies. The children's attorney requested additional rental assistance for the aunt, which DFS declined. During a hearing on a motion to terminate parental rights, the district court ordered DFS to pay an additional $1,000 towards the aunt's rent. DFS sought reconsideration, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada initially ordered DFS to pay the rental assistance, citing NRS 432B.550(1) as the basis for its authority. DFS argued that the district court lacked statutory authority to issue such an order and petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the order.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked statutory authority to order DFS to pay rental assistance. The court found that NRS 432B.550(1) and NRS 432B.590(7) did not empower the district court to direct DFS to make such payments. The court emphasized that DFS has broad statutory authority to manage its budget without interference from the court. Consequently, the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing the order. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order requiring DFS to pay rental assistance to the foster parent. View "In re N.R.R. and N.I.R." on Justia Law