Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's modification of physical custody in this custodial action but reversed the court's parenting time allocation and vacated its award of attorney fees and costs, holding that the district court abused its discretion in part.In this opinion, the Supreme Court (1) provided a definition of sole physical custody to ensure custodial orders are properly characterized; (2) directed district courts to retain their substantive decision-making authority over custodial modifications and parenting time allocations; and (3) clarified when reassignment of a case to a different judge on remand is appropriate due to the requisite fairness demanded in ongoing child custody proceedings. As to the case before it, the Court held (1) substantial evidence supported the district court's decision to modify physical custody; (2) the district court abused its discretion by improperly characterizing its custodial award as primary physical custody when it was in fact sole physical custody. View "Roe v. Roe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction as to all counts except count two and reversed and remanded for the district court to strike count two from the judgment and enter an amended judgment, holding that the district court gave an incorrect jury instruction as to the larceny-from-the-person charges, and therefore, Defendant's conviction under count two must be reversed.Defendant was convicted of twenty counts of burglary, larceny, and fraudulent use of a credit or debit card. The Supreme Court largely affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not erroneously admit evidence of uncharged bad acts; (2) erred in admitting a certain detective's statement, but the error was not reversible; (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial and by not excusing a seated juror for his expression of sympathy to victims who testified during trial; and (4) misstated the law in instruction number ten, and therefore, the conviction for count two should be reversed. View "Young v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court concluding that an appeals officer erred in denying benefits to the widow and child of an employee who died while on a work trip, holding that there is no requirement that an employee's activities be foreseeable to his employer in order for the employee to recover workers' compensation benefits.Jason Buma died when he traveled from Nevada to Texas for a work conference and had an accident one evening while riding an ATV around a ranch owned by his coworker. Plaintiffs, Buma's wife and child, requested workers' compensation benefits, but the request was denied. An appeals officer upheld the denial. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the appeals officer failed to apply the traveling employee rule. On remand, the appeals officer again denied benefits on the grounds that there was no evidence in the record that Jason's employer could have foreseen that Jason would be riding ATVs. The district court granted Plaintiffs' petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appeals officer misinterpreted this Court's decision in Buma I and that this Court did not impose a requirement that an employee's activities need be foreseeable to his employer in order for the employee to recover workers' compensation benefits. View "Providence Corp. Development v. Buma" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question by concluding that a series LLC created pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 86.296 must be sued in its own name for the court to obtain jurisdiction over it, so long as the series LLC has observed the corporate formalities provided for in Nev. Rev. Stat. 86.296(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether, under Nevada law, a series LLC created pursuant to section 86.296 must be sued in its own name for the court to obtain jurisdiction over it, or whether the master LLC under which the series is created may be sued instead. The Supreme Court answered the question as set forth above, holding that the master LLC may not be legally responsible for the acts of the series LLC and that if a series LLC has observed corporate formalities, it should be the named entity in a lawsuit against the series LLC. View "Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Saticoy Bay LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to Child, holding that the record did not support the district court's findings of parental fault or that termination of Father's parental rights was in Child's best interest.Father was abusing prescription drugs and illegal substances when Child was removed from his care. For the first sixteen months of the protective custody action, Father consistently visited child and completed the required parenting classes. By the time of the trial on the Department of Family Service's (DFS) motion to terminate Father's parental rights Father had been sober for several months and successfully participating in the drug court program. After learning that successful completion of the program would take Father at least another eight months the district court proceeded with the termination trial and subsequently terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when there is evidence that a parent has been successfully attempting to overcome an addiction to substances, the district court can lawfully continue the termination proceedings to allow the parent to make further progress and complete their case plan; and (2) substantial evidence did not support the district court's findings in this case. View "In re Parental Rights as to G.R.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the proposed schedule of June, an adult protected person, in this appeal challenging the court's rulings concerning June's ability to manage familial relationships, holding that there was insufficient evidentiary support for June's schedule.Also at issue in this case was the process for removing June's guardian and appointing a successor guardian and June's standing to challenge certain issues on appeal. The Supreme Court held (1) June had standing to challenge on appeal both the removal or her guardian and the appointment of the successor guardian; (2) the district court has authority to remove a guardian and appoint a successor guardian with the filing of a formal, written petition for removal, and a protected person is entitled to prior notice of and opportunity to be heard on such actions; (3) the district court did not improperly remove June's guardian and appoint a successor guardian, and June was afforded adequate due process; and (4) although the district court erred by improperly shifting the burden to June to file a communication and visitation petition under Nev. Rev. Stat. 159.332-.338, the court properly denied June's proposed schedule. View "In re Guardianship of Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court, certified as final under Nev. R. Civ. P. 54(b), partially dismissing a medical malpractice action for failure to meet the affidavit-of-merit requirement set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 41A.071 as to three of the named defendants, holding that there was no error.Appellant, as special administrator of the estate of Sharon Monk, sued University Medical Center and Sharon's other healthcare providers, including the three physicians who were the respondents to this appeal, alleging negligence. Monk supported the complaint with a declaration from Nurse Jamescia Hambrick. The district court granted Respondents' motion to dismiss on the grounds that Nurse Hambrick lacked the qualifications necessary to establish Nev. Rev. Stat. 41A.071 as to Respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims against Respondents was not exempted from section 41A.071's affidavit-of-merit requirement. View "Monk v. Ching" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court to deny Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA) challenging the failure of the Reno Police Department (RPD) to disclose certain records, holding that the district court erred in part.At issue on appeal was RPD's refusal to disclose an investigative report to Appellant, who owned and operated an online news website, and RPD's redaction to officers' faces before disclosing body-worn camera footage. The district court denied Appellant's mandamus petition as to both issues. The Supreme Court (1) reversed in part regarding the investigative report, holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying Appellant's petition with respect to the report without individualized findings regarding the redacted material; and (2) affirmed the district court's decision regarding the redactions to the body-worn camera footage, holding that the district court correctly denied this portion of the petition. View "Conrad v. Reno Police Dep't" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court granting summary judgment and dismissal in favor of a loan servicer and trustee in this case involving a home equity line of credit agreement (HELOC) with a defined maturity date and closed draw period, holding that there was no error.At issue before the Court was whether a loan servicer and trustee were entitled to foreclose upon Borrowers' residence due to Borrowers' failure to repay the funds provided to them under the terms of their HELOC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that Borrowers' HELOC was both a negotiable instrument under Nev. Rev. Stat. 104.3104(1) and a promissory note under Nev. Rev. Stat. 104.3104(5), entitling the loan servicer and trustee to enforce the document under Nev. Rev. Code chapter 104 due to Borrowers' default; and (2) erred in finding that Borrowers' property was not owner-occupied and thus not subject to statutory requirements pertaining to foreclosures affecting owner-occupied housing, but the error was harmless. View "Wishengrad v. Carrington Mortgage Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees (CCASAPE)'s petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a so-called "teacher lottery," holding that the district court properly rejected CCASAPE's interpretation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 388G.610.CCASAPE, a school administrators' union, filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief alleging that Clark County School District (CCSD) violated section 388G.610 by implementing a policy under which certain teachers were unilaterally assigned to local school precincts without the consent of each precinct. The district court denied relief because CCASAPE failed to demonstrate that any assignment was inconsistent with statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complained-of policy did not run afoul of section 388G.610 because it was implemented to ensure compliance with collective bargaining agreements and allow for as much selection authority as the school district held. View "Clark County Ass'n of School Administrators v. Clark County School District" on Justia Law