Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal was taken from a district court order in a quiet title action. While the appeal was pending, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) declared twenty-seven unpatented mining claims asserted by Appellant forfeit and void by operation of law because Appellant failed to comply with the statutory mining claim maintenance requirement. Consequently, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal was rendered moot when the BLM declared Appellant's asserted claims forfeit and void. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the appeal was moot because the controversy that existed at the beginning of this litigation concerning superior title was no longer at issue, and Appellant's claims did not exist as a matter of law. View "Majuba Mining, Ltd. v. Pumpkin Copper, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondents were involved in the development and construction of Holcomb Condominiums (Condos). Appellant was the homeowners' association for Condos. Appellant filed, on behalf of itself and all condominium homeowners, a constructional defect complaint against Respondents, alleging a variety of defects and claims for negligence and breach of warranty. The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint as time-barred by the two-year contractual limitations period found in nearly identical arbitration agreements attached to each of the homeowners' purchase contracts. The court also denied as futile Appellant's request to amend its complaint to add causes of action for willful misconduct and fraudulent concealment based on missing roof underlayment, finding that the claim would also be time-barred by the contractual limitations period. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) arbitration agreements containing a reduced limitations period that are attached to and incorporated into purchase contracts are unlawful; (2) the district court erred in finding Appellants' negligence-based claims and breach of warranty claims were time-barred; and (3) because the contractual limitations provision was unenforceable, the district court's denial of the motion to amend on this basis was improper. View "Holcomb Condo. Homeowners' Ass'n v. Stewart Venture, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with sexual assault of a minor and lewdness with a child. The jury acquitted Petitioner of the lewdness count and deadlocked on the sexual assault count. The district court declared a mistrial on the sexual assault count and set a date for a new trial. Petitioner moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the double jeopardy clause and the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibited a second trial for sexual assault because he was acquitted of lewdness, and both offenses were based upon the same event. The district court denied the motion based on the jury's inability to reach of verdict on the sexual assault count. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus, holding (1) in determining whether an issue of ultimate fact has been decided and cannot be relitigated in a subsequent trial, the district court must examine the record of the first trial and determine whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict on some other issue of fact; (2) in conducting this analysis, the court may not consider the jury's inability to reach a verdict on the other counts; and (3) in this case, the district court improperly analyzed Petitioner's double jeopardy claim. View "Gonzalez v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of invasion of a home in violation of a temporary protective order (TPO). Defendant did not file a motion with the district court regarding the TPO's validity and did not address the issue during his sentencing. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the procurement of the TPO violated the procedure set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 33.020(5) and violated Defendant's due process rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant may not collaterally attack the TPO's validity in a subsequent prosecution for violating the TPO; and (2) the other issues Defendant raised on appeal also lacked merit. View " Truesdell v. State" on Justia Law

Judgment creditors obtained judgments in Florida against Jeffrey Kirsch and various entities he created (collectively, judgment debtors). Kirsch also created Rock Bay, a Nevada company. After the Florida litigation began, a series of monetary transfers occurred between Rock Bay and the judgment debtors. When the judgment creditors were unsuccessful in executing their judgments on the judgment debtors' assets, they domesticated the Florida judgments in Nevada. Kirsch voluntarily dissolved Rock Bay one week later. The judgment creditors then served a subpoena on a Las Vegas accounting firm that performed accounting services for the judgment debtors and Rock Bay, seeking records related to the judgment debtors and Rock Bay. Rock Bay unsuccessfully moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that it was not a party to the underlying litigation. The Supreme Court found the district court did not exceed its authority over Rock Bay, holding that discovery of a nonparty's assets under Nev. R. Civ. P. 69(a) is not permissible absent special circumstances, including those in which the relationship between the judgment debtor and the nonparty raises reasonable suspicion as to the good faith of asset transfers between the two, or in which the nonparty is the alter ego of the judgment debtor. View "Rock Bay, LLC v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and discharging a firearm at or into a vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when he was denied his counsel of choice at his preliminary hearing before the justice court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the justice court's denial of Defendant's request to be represented by retained counsel at the preliminary hearing violated Defendant's qualified right to counsel of his choice; but (2) the denial of Defendant's counsel of choice at the preliminary hearing was harmless error. View " Patterson v. State" on Justia Law

More than a year after Wife's and Husband's divorce, Wife filed a motion to reopen discovery. Wife also filed a motion to disqualify Judge Gonzalez from hearing the motion to reopen discovery, asserting that Judge Gonzalez hearing the motion would create an appearance of impropriety because Husband and others connected to the parties' divorce contributed to the judge's reelection complain. Judge Togliatti denied Wife's motion to disqualify Judge Gonzalez, and the Judge Gonzalez went on to preside over Wife's motion to reopen discovery. Wife subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition vacating Judge Togliatti's order and disqualifying Judge Gonzalez from hearing the motion to reopen discovery. The Supreme Court denied Wife's petition, holding that the failure to disqualify Judge Gonzalez did not violate Wife's due process rights or Nevada law, as all of the campaign contributions at issue were within statutory limits and made after the divorce decree. View "Ivey v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for libel per se and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on Defendant's posting on the Internet accusing Plaintiff and his wife, a city councilwoman, of not following city municipal code requirements for the licensure of their law firm. Plaintiff, however, voluntarily dismissed the suit nine days after Defendant received the complaint and before Defendant filed an answer or any pleading in the case. Defendant then filed a separate complaint against Plaintiff, seeking damages and attorney fees pursuant to Nevada's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that if the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action before the defendant files either an initial responsive pleading or a special motion to dismiss pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.670, the defendant cannot file an anti-SLAPP suit against the plaintiff based on that action. View " Stubbs v. Strickland" on Justia Law

In 2009, Respondents hired a construction company (Company) to construct a shooting range. Respondents paid Company's bills as the construction continued through the summer and fall. By September, Company had billed $48,810. Respondents paid $46,000 by October but then refused to pay anything further. Soon thereafter, Company quit the project, which was largely finished. The range opened for business soon after. At the end of the year, Respondents installed soundproofing to the building. In March 2010, Company recorded its mechanics lien. In August, Company filed a complaint against Respondents seeking to recover $40,000 in damages and costs. The district court held the lien was not timely and was therefore frivolous and ordered the lien released, ruling that the "work of improvement" of constructing the shooting range concluded more than ninety days before Company filed the lien. At issue on appeal was whether the soundproofing constituted a "work of improvement." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the soundproofing was not within the scope of the "work of improvement" or finding that the lien was untimely and frivolous. View "I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

Child was placed into the protective custody of the County Department of Social Services after Child was found with her extremely intoxicated mother. Child's father (Father) was not involved in the events leading to Child's removal. Social Services filed a petition for neglect against both parents, but the petition was dismissed as to Father. The juvenile court denied Child's placement with Father and placed Child in the legal custody of Social Services while Father was ordered to comply with a case plan for reunification with Child. Social Services then filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to Child. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father was not required to comply with a case plan and accept services for purposes of reunification when Father was not found to have neglected the child; (2) keeping Child from the custody of Father when there were no substantiated findings he had neglected Child violated Father's fundamental constitutional rights to parent his child; and (3) the presumptions favoring termination of parental rights under Nev. Rev. Stat. 128.109, which arose from Child being placed outside the home in the dependence proceeding, did not apply to Father. View "Washoe County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kory L.G." on Justia Law