Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court admitting a will to probate that was drafted by or for the decedent in Portugal and was written in Portuguese, where the decedent was domiciled in Maryland and the subject property at death was a house in Nevada, holding that the district court did not err in applying the will at issue to the decedent's entire estate.After the decedent died in Nevada, Respondent, the decedent's surviving spouse, filed a petition for general administration of the estate and to admit the will to probate. Appellant filed an objection to the petition, asserting that the will could not be probated in Nevada because it was signed in a foreign country. The district court admitted the will to probate. The Supreme Court affirmed, (1) the laws of relevant foreign states must be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity of an "authorized person" for the purpose of implementing the Uniform International Wills Act (UIWA), codified as Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 133A; (2) even if it is executed in a foreign county, a will that fails to comply with the UIWA can be probated in Nevada if it complies with Chapter 133; and (3) Appellant was not entitled to a will contest during the proceedings below. View "In re Estate of Sweet" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing a petition for adult name change under Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.270, holding that the district court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing the petition without resolution on the merits.Appellant filed a petition with the family division to change her name, stating that her reason for the name change was to conform her name to her gender identity. The district court summarily dismissed the petition for pending too long without any action, but the order provided no explanation as to what action Appellant failed to take. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court erroneously applied the relevant law. View "In re Change of Name Salazar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief in part in this case directing the district court to enter an order concerning Petitioner's custodial status consistent with the instructions set forth in this opinion, holding that Petitioner was entitled to mandamus relief in part.Petitioner was arrested, charged with criminal activity, release on bail, then taken into custody for allegedly violating his bail conditions. While he waited for an evidentiary hearing after a remand Petitioner brought this action asking the Court to consider the standards for pretrial release in general and as applied and then to direct his release. In the meantime, the district court re-released Petition to house arrest. The Supreme Court held (1) Petitioner's claims challenging the imposition of house arrest were not moot but the remaining claims were moot; (2) a defendant is constitutionally-entitled to a prompt hearing after being taken into custody from pretrial release, and the State bears the burden of demonstrating probable cause at the hearing; (3) a violation of a condition of house arrest may lead to statutory sanctions; and (4) the district court is required to make findings of fact on the record that each condition of pretrial release was the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety and the defendant's return to court. View "Johnson v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in denying Appellant's motion to compel arbitration and refusing to submit the arbitrability determination under the circumstances of this case to an arbitrator.Plaintiffs sued Airbnb, Inc. for wrongful death and personal injury alleging that Airbnb's services had been used by a party's host to rent the house where a shooting occurred, resulting in a fatality. Airbnb moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Plaintiffs had agreed to Airbnb's Terms of Service during the registration process for their accounts. The district court denied the motion to compel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Federal Arbitrability Administration governed the enforcement of arbitration agreement at issue, and because the agreement delegated the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the district court erred in deciding the arbitrability question. View "Airbnb, Inc. v. Rice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to compel arbitration, holding that where an arbitration agreement delegates the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the district court must refer to the case to arbitration, even if the court concludes that the dispute is not subject to the arbitration agreement.Respondents filed a personal injury lawsuit against Uber after their Uber driver rear-ended another Uber driver. Uber moved to compel arbitration on the grounds that Respondents had agreed to arbitrate their claims. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration agreement did not plainly provide that the parties agreed to submit this particular dispute to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where the arbitration agreement's delegation clause expressly requires the arbitrator to determine threshold issues of arbitrability, the district court erred by denying Uber's motion to compel on the ground that the claims were not subject to the arbitration agreement. View "Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Royz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the order of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found as a result of and during a protective sweep, holding that a protective sweep does not require a prior arrest.In granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, the district court determined that the officers did not have an appropriate basis for the protective sweep and that the sweep was per se unconstitutional because it was not preceded by an arrest. The district court concluded that the search was not a lawful protective sweep because it was not based on articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that the premises harbored a dangerous individual. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that because the district court did not indicate the specific evidence that was improperly seized as a result of the protective sweep or as its fruit, remand was required for clarification of the evidence that fell within the scope of the suppression order and which items were properly seized by law enforcement. View "State v. McCall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's last remaining claim in this action with prejudice without conducting the required analysis for imposing case-concluding sanctions, holding that the district court erred.At issue in this case was the extent to which a non-lawyer agent who is granted authority over claims and litigation under a power of attorney may litigate a claim belonging to the principal. The Supreme Court held (1) a non-lawyer agent operating under a power of attorney pursuant to Nevada's Uniform Power of Attorney Act concerning claims and litigation may not litigate an action in pro se in place of the principal or otherwise engage in the practice of law on the principal's behalf; (2) the trial court properly held that Appellant's non-lawyer agent under a power of attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; and (3) the trial court's decision to dismiss the action with prejudice after Appellant failed timely to file a proper amended complaint amounted to a case-concluding sanction for Appellant's failure to comply with a court order. View "Eby v. Johnston Law Office, P.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court establishing child custody, visitation, and child support holding that the district court erred by exceeding the cap set forth in NAC 425.150(1)(f).Father in this case had a monthly income of approximately $38,000, and Mother's monthly income was approximately $5,000. Mother sought an upward adjustment to Father's child support obligation. The district court ordered Father to pay $3,500 per month in child support. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 425.150(1)(f) plainly caps the limit of any upward adjustment to Mother's monthly obligation amount; and (2) the district court did not err by basing an upward adjustment on NAC 425.150(1)(f), but the court did err by ordering an upward adjustment in excess of the other party's total obligation. View "Matkulak v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of a drug offense in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 453.336(2)(a), holding that the statutes governing Defendant's first-offense drug crime mandated judgment deferral under the circumstances of this case.Defendant pleaded guilty to violating section 453.336(2)(a) pursuant to a guilty-plea agreement with the State that did not address judgment deferral. Before sentencing, Defendant filed an election to enter a substance-use treatment program without addressing whether he qualified for judgment deferral. The district court entered a judgment of conviction with a corresponding prison sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the plain language of Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.211(3)(a)(1) requires the district court to defer judgment where the defendant consents to deferral and pleads guilty to violating section 453.336(2)(a); and (2) the district court lacked discretion to decline to defer judgment. View "Locker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying and dismissing this class action complaint brought against Plaintiffs' former employer to obtain unpaid minimum and overtime wages, holding that the district court adhered to the law in its orders and that Plaintiffs failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.Plaintiffs filed a putative class action asserting four claims. In the aggregate, the district court issued three orders in favor of Defendant that Plaintiffs challenged on appeal, including an order granting in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, an order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and a clarification order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) dismissing the majority of Plaintiffs' statutory claims as time-barred; (2) granting summary judgment; and (3) concluding that an employer that is a party to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is exempt from the overtime scheme under Nev. Rev. Sat. 608.018 so long as the CBA provides overtime in a different manner than the statute. View "Martel v. HG Staffing, LLC" on Justia Law