Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in the underlying divorce action, holding that while parts of the decree were legally and factually supportable, other portions contained numerous legal and factual deficiencies.Following lengthy divorce proceedings the district court summarily adopted Respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of divorce without making any modifications. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court committed reversible error in doing so. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) utilizing a party's proposed order does not in and of itself constitute an abuse of discretion; and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it granted financial awards for alimony, attorney fees, and expert fees and when it unequally distributed the parties' community property and debt. View "Eivazi v. Eivazi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint alleging that Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.355, Nevada's statute providing that an execution must be effectuated by injection of a lethal drug, is unconstitutional because it gives the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections discretion to determine the process by which a lethal injection is administered, holding that there was no error.Appellant, a death-row inmate, argued that section 176.355 lacked suitable standards because it afforded the Director complete discretion to determine the types, dosages, and sequencing of drugs to be used in the execution. The district court dismissed the challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute, combined with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, provided the Director with suitable standards to determine the process by which a lethal injection is to be administered. View "Floyd v. State, Dep't of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court sua sponte deciding to remove a protected minor's guardian and terminate the minor's guardianship based upon an ex parte communication, holding that the proceedings and resulting order did not comport with due process.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) has authority to sua sponte remove a guardian and terminate a guardianship even in the absence of a petition seeking removal and termination; (2) violated Defendant's right to due process by failing to give proper notice that it was contemplating removal and termination; (3) abused its discretion by failing to apply the applicable statutes and factors for removal and termination; and (4) made unsupported and clearly erroneous factual determinations in reaching its decision. View "In re D.M.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in this child custody matter, holding that when parents with court-ordered joint legal custody of a minor child disagree on medical decisions concerning that child, the district court breaks the tie by determining which course of action is in the child's best interest.The divorced parents in this case, who had joint legal custody of their eleven-year-old child, disagreed whether the child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The court took note of government and professional groups' guidelines and research results regarding the safety of the COVID-19, accepted the child's pediatrician's recommendation, and found that vaccination was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's finding of best interest aligned with the factors adopted in this opinion. View "Kelley v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied writ relief in this writ proceeding, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted.At issue was Nev. Rev. Stat. 357.080(3)(b), which prevents a private plaintiff from maintaining an action under the Nevada False Claims Act (NFCA) if the action is based on the same allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil action to which the State or a political subdivision is already a party. The Supreme Court held (1) section 357.080(3)(b) does not contain a sequencing requirement and therefore requires dismissal of a private action brought under the NFCA even if the civil action was filed after the private action; (2) section 357.080(3)(b) does not bar a separate private action on behalf of a different governmental entity even where the two suits involve the same allegations or transactions; and (3) Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted. View "Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appeals officer limiting the reopening of Appellant's claim to the lumbar spine and affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's petition for judicial review, holding that the appeals officer properly determined that the reopening of Appellant's claim was warranted only as to the lumbar spine.Although Appellant was previously treated for injuries to several parts of her body, including her head and back, she sought to reopen her claim due to the worsening condition of her lumbar spine. The appeals officer ordered that Appellant's claim be reopened for the lumbar spine only, and Appellant sought judicial review. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appeals officer properly limited the reopening of the claim to the lumbar spine. View "Olvera v. Wynn Las Vegas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court accepting Appellant's plea of no contest to two counts of attempted lewdness with a child and imposed the special condition of probation mandated by Nev. Rev. Stat. 176A.410(1)(q), holding subsection (q) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.Upon accepting Appellant's no contest plea the district court placed him on probation and imposed the special condition mandated by subsection (q), which prohibits a defendant on probation for a sexual offense from accessing the internet without his probation officer's permission. On appeal, Appellant argued that the mandatory internet ban failed intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to the mandatory internet ban and otherwise affirmed, holding that because Nev. Rev. Stat. 176A.410(1)(q) is both mandatory and restricts more speech than necessary to serve the government's interest with no tailoring mechanism it is facially unconstitutional. View "Aldape v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Administrator of the Division of State Lands of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and dismissing Appellants' petition under Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.110 for a declaratory judgment that a fee-setting regulation was invalid, holding that there was no error.At issue was NAC 322.190, a regulation that sets permit fees for the residential use of piers and buoys on navigable waters in Nevada. Appellants petitioned for a declaratory judgment that the fee-setting regulation was invalid. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Division did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating NAC 322.195, and Appellants failed to overcome the presumption that the regulation is valid. View "Killebrew v. Donohue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for judicial review of the denial of her appeal of her suspension from her position as a correctional officer, holding that when an employee requests a hearing to challenge a state employer's disciplinary decision pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) 284.390 and fails to comply with the attachment requirement set forth in Nev. Admin. Code (NAC) 284.6562, the appeal is defective and must be dismissed.At issue was whether the requirement in NAC 284.6562(2)(b) that a state employee requesting a hearing to challenge the reasonableness of a disciplinary action under NRS 284.390 attach a copy of the written notification of the discipline to the appeal form is jurisdictional or procedural. A hearing officer with the State of Nevada Department of Corrections found that NAC 284.6562(2)(b) was a jurisdictional requirement that could not be cured because the deadline for Appellant to file an appeal had passed. The district court agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) NAC 284.6562(2)(b) is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule, but compliance with the rule is mandatory; and (2) while the hearing officer had jurisdiction to adjudicate Appellant's disciplinary appeal, the hearing officer reached the right result by dismissing the appeal. View "Kassebaum v. State, Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ petition filed by Petitioner challenging the decision of the Las Vegas Municipal Court denying Petitioner's request for attorney fees and litigation expenses after criminal charges against him were dismissed and withdrawn, holding that the municipal court correctly determined that it lacked authority to award attorney fees and litigation expenses.Petitioner was arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer and a traffic violation. Petitioner successfully moved to dismiss the obstruction charge, and the traffic violation charge was subsequently withdrawn. Petitioner then filed an application for attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.0393. The municipal court denied the request for lack of authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that municipal courts lack authority under section 41.0393 to award attorney fees and litigation expenses to the prevailing party in a criminal action. View "Patterson v. Las Vegas Municipal Court" on Justia Law