Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While shopping at a Costco membership warehouse store, Appellant tripped and fell over a wood pallet that had been placed in an aisle of the warehouse by a Costco employee. Appellant filed a complaint against Costco for the injuries he received from his fall. The district court granted summary judgment for Costco, concluding that Costco had not breached its duty of care because the hazard created by the pallet was open and obvious to Appellant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the fact that a dangerous condition may be open and obvious bears on the assessment of whether reasonable care was exercised by the landowner; and (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Costco because questions remained as to whether the pallet was in fact and open and obvious condition, whether Costco acted reasonably under the circumstances by allowing a pallet to impede Appellant's path through the aisle without warning, and whether Appellant failed to exercise reasonable self-protection in encountering the pallet. View "Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

Respondent purchased a luxury sports car from Desert Audi. Defendant contracted with Nex-Day Auto Transport, Inc. to facilitate delivery of the vehicle to Washington. Nex-Day negotiated with Dynamic Transit Company/Knights Company (Knights) for delivery of the vehicle. Knights picked up the car, transported it to Washington, but demanded that Nex-Day tender payment for its unrelated past-due invoices before it would proceed with the delivery. Nex-Day failed to do so, and Knights refused to deliver Respondent's vehicle. Respondent brought an action against Knights, alleging various state-law claims. After filing its answer, Knights filed a motion to dismiss Respondent's complaint, asserting that Respondent's state-law claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment's federal liability limitation for interstate cargo carriers. The district court concluded that the Carmack Amendment was inapplicable and denied Knights' motion. The district court then granted judgment in Respondent's favor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Knights' motion to dismiss; (2) substantial evidence supported the district court's judgment; and (3) the district court's award of damages was proper. View "Dynamic Transit v. Trans Pac. Ventures" on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against Appellants, alleging breach of contract and fraud- and tort-based claims based on their purchase of two furniture stores from Appellants. The district court entered judgment for Respondents. The court allowed Respondents to rescind the agreement and awarded them damages. Although they appealed the judgment, Appellants did not obtain a stay of execution. Thus, despite the pending appeal, Respondents obtained a writ of execution on the judgment, allowing them to execute against one appellant's personal property. Respondents subsequently purchased Appellants' rights and interests in the district court action. Respondents moved to substitute as real parties in interest and dismiss the appeal on the basis that they acquired Appellants' claims and defenses at the sheriff's sale. The Supreme Court denied Respondents' motion, holding that Nevada's judgment execution statutes do not include the right to execute on a party's defenses to an action, as permitting a judgment creditor to execute on a judgment in such a way would cut of a debtor's defenses in a manner inconsistent with due process principles. View "Butwinick v. Hepner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary, grand larceny, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, first-degree kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred by dismissing a prospective juror before conducting a Batson hearing, and whether sufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) because Defendant asserted a Batson violation, it was a structural error to dismiss the challenged juror prior to conducting the Batson hearing because it showed the district court predetermined the challenge before actually hearing it; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping conviction. View "Brass v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a developer, helped construct a planned development (the "community"). The community HOA sued the developers, sellers, and builders of the development, including Petitioner, on behalf of the individual homeowners, alleging construction-defect-based claims for breach of implied and express warranties and negligence. Thereafter, the community HOA filed a motion for the district court to determine that its claims satisfied the class action requirements of Nev. R. Civ. P. 23. The district court concluded that the HOA did not need to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and thus allowed the action to proceed without conducting a class action analysis. Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition, claiming that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to undertake a class action analysis. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition to the extent that it directed the district court to analyze the Rule 23 factors in this case. In so doing, the Court clarified the application of D.R. Horton v. District Court when a homeowners' association seeks to litigate construction-defect claims on behalf of its members under Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3102(1)(d). View "Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Dist. Court " on Justia Law

A dispute between a bank customer (Customer) and her bank (Bank) over missing endorsements was submitted to arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator issued a written award in Bank's favor and then granted Bank's motion for an order confirming the arbitration award and for entry of judgment on the order. Customer objected, arguing that, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 38.239, she should have been afforded the opportunity to oppose the motion to confirm and/or to file a competing motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred in summarily confirming the arbitration award against Customer without giving Customer the opportunity to be heard in opposition to the motion to confirm, even though the ninety-day period for Customer to move to vacate, modify, or correct the award had yet to run. View "Casey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

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