Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit a felony under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The State later filed a motion requesting that the justice court grant Respondent immunity in exchange for her testimony against another defendant, Gary Taylor, which was granted. Prior to sentencing in her own case, Respondent involuntarily testified at Taylor's preliminary hearing. Respondent then filed motions to dismiss the criminal complaint filed against her and to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that because the justice court granted her transactional immunity, the State could no longer prosecute her for any actions discussed in her testimony. The district court granted the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nevada's immunity statutes do confer transactional immunity where a defendant is forced to testify; and (2) the grant of transactional immunity to a defendant in exchange for testimony, even after entering a guilty plea, immunizes a defendant from further prosecution, including sentencing. View "State v. Tricas" on Justia Law

During divorce proceedings between Husband and Wife, Husband sought an interest in Wife's separate property and requested spousal support. After three evidentiary hearings, the district court entered a divorce decree in which it found that Husband was not entitled to any interest in Wife's separate property. The court also declined to award spousal support to either party. Husband appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the decree regarding the property division, holding that the district court's separate property decisions were supported by substantial evidence; but (2) reversed and remanded as to the district court's rejection of the spousal support request, holding that the court failed properly to consider that issue, as (i) Husband was not afforded an opportunity to present any evidence relating to spousal support, and (ii) the court's order failed to explain its reasons for awarding no spousal support. View "DeVries v. Gallio" on Justia Law

Appellant contracted to provide traffic control on a road improvement project coordinated and facilitated by Respondent. The parties' contract required Appellant to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Respondent to the extent that Appellant caused any injury or damage. After a woman was injured in connection with the road improvement project and sued the parties for negligence, Respondent sought indemnification and defense from Appellant. Appellant, however, denied that it was obligated to provide indemnification and defense. After a jury trial in which the jury found Appellant did not proximately cause the underlying accident, the district court granted Respondent's motion to enforce indemnification, concluding that Appellant presented no evidence to suggest a lack of its potential liability under the contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a plain reading of the contractual indemnity language imposed a causal limitation on Appellant's duty to indemnify and defendant Respondent; and (2) because the jury found Appellant did not proximately cause the underlying accident, Appellant did not have a duty to indemnify or defend Respondent. View "United Rentals Highway Techs. v. Wells Cargo Inc." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals presented specific applications of the question of whether a defendant can, in a single trial, be prosecuted and punished cumulatively for a single act that violates more than one criminal statute. Specifically, these appeals presented the following questions: When the elements of both crimes are met, can a defendant who shoots and hits but fails to kill his victim be convicted of and punished for both attempted murder and battery? Also, if the defendant shoots and misses, can he be convicted of and punished for both attempted murder and assault? The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction in both appeals after repeating the rule that if each statute contains an element that the other does not, then the offenses are different. The Court held that, in this case, Defendants' multiple convictions and punishments for attempted murder, assault, and battery in this case were statutorily authorized and further, did not offend the test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, which licenses multiple punishments unless, analyzed in terms of their elements, one charged offense is the same or a lesser-included offense of the other. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

Randy Holcomb, who worked as a construction laborer and automotive mechanic, contracted and died from mesothelioma, typically caused by exposure to asbestos. Before Randy died, he and his wife, Tamara Holcomb (collectively, Appellants), filed a personal injury complaint against joint-compound manufacturers, manufacturers of asbestos-containing products, an asbestos supplier, and various automotive brake produce manufacturers, distributers, and sellers. The complaint asserted that Randy's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to products containing asbestos. As relevant to this appeal, the district court granted summary judgment for the manufacturers of asbestos-containing productions and the asbestos supplier. On appeal, the Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. for mesothelioma cases. The Court then affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the asbestos supplier's favor but reversed the grant of summary judgment for the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products, holding that Appellants raised inferences of probable exposure to the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products sufficient to defeat summary judgment as to those respondents. View "Holcomb v. Georgia Pac., LLC" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, Appellant Michael Grisham and Respondent Susie Grisham negotiated based on a draft property settlement agreement (PSA). At the end of an uncontested divorce prove-up hearing, the district court orally accepted the settlement. Michael, however, refused to sign the PSA. After several months, Susie moved for entry of a divorce decree based on the PSA. The district court entered a final written decree incorporating the PSA and denied Michael's motion for mistrial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's procedure complied with applicable district court rules, which obviated any issue as to the statute of frauds, and the PSA otherwise met the requirements for an enforceable contract. View "Grisham v. Grisham" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Nevada homeowner, elected mediation pursuant to the Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP) to produce a loan modification. When the mediation did not result in a loan modification, Appellant filed a petition for judicial review asking for sanctions against Respondent, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC), alleging that BAC failed to comply with the FMP's document production and good faith requirements. The district court rejected Appellant's petition, finding (1) there was no irregularity as to the submitted documents; (2) BAC met its burden of showing a lack of bad faith; and (3) absent a timely appeal, a letter of certification would issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although BAC's document production lacked a key assignment, Appellant filled the gap with a document he produced; and (2) the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions and allowing the FMP certificate to issue. View "Einhorn v. BAC Homes Loans Servicing" on Justia Law

Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) filed in district court a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition regarding a budget dispute with Clark County and its officials (County). SNHD petitioned the court to compel the County to fully fund SNHD in the amount it had requested and to prohibit the County from interfering with its funding. The district court granted the relief requested, holding (1) the controlling statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 439.865, was ambiguous as to whether the County could exercise control over the amount of funding SNHD received in its annual budget; and (2) the Legislature appeared to have intended the direct funding source to which SNHD asserted it was entitled. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) section 439.865 was ambiguous, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a writ of mandamus; but (2) prohibition relief was improperly granted, as the County's participation in the budgeting process did not involve the exercise of judicial functions. View "Clark County v. S. Nev. Health Dist." on Justia Law

Petitioners, corporate entities and an individual that serviced and brokered loans for the acquisition and development of real property, faced a civil suit and a criminal investigation in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme. Petitioners filed a motion with the district court in their civil case to stay any depositions and written discovery that would require their employees and officers to make testimonial statements, asserting that the evidence could be used by the FBI in their criminal investigation. The district court summarily denied the motion without prejudice. Petitioners subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition directing the district court to grant their motion to stay. The Supreme Court denied the requested relief, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, on balance, the interests of Petitioners in a stay did not outweigh the countervailing interests involved and in therefore denying the motion to stay. View "Aspen Fin. Servs. v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court addressed a district court's discretion when resolving a petition for release from a special sentence of lifetime supervision. Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.0931(3), the statutory provision governing such petitions, provides that a district court "shall grant a petition for release from a special sentence of lifetime supervision" if certain requirements are met. Based on the plain language of the statute, the Court concluded that the district court has discretion to determine whether a petitioner has met the statutory requirements but lacks discretion to deny a petition for release from lifetime supervision if that court finds the statutory requirements were met. In this case, the district court denied the petition based on victim impact testimony and made no findings as to whether Appellant had complied with the statutory requirements. Thus, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded. View "Goudge v. State" on Justia Law