Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A union member employed by a county juvenile justice agency was terminated after it was discovered that he had failed to disclose instances of prior disciplinary actions related to his behavior with residents at a previous job in another county. During a background check required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the county learned that the employee had misrepresented the circumstances of his departure from his earlier position, specifically omitting that he resigned while under investigation for inappropriate conduct. Based on PREA regulations, which mandate termination for material omissions regarding such misconduct, the county dismissed the employee.Following his termination, the union initiated a grievance on his behalf under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the county, which allows for arbitration of certain employment disputes. When the county denied the grievance, the union sought arbitration. The county then moved in the Eighth Judicial District Court to stay arbitration, arguing that terminations pursuant to PREA regulations were not subject to arbitration under the CBA. The district court agreed, determining that the arbitration clause was narrow and applied only to disciplinary actions defined as “corrective actions” intended to help an employee overcome deficiencies related to behavior or performance, not to terminations required by federal regulation.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the matter and affirmed the district court’s order granting the motion to stay arbitration. The court held that the arbitration clause in the CBA was narrow and could not be interpreted to cover the termination at issue, as the action was implemented pursuant to federal regulation, not as a corrective measure for employee improvement. The Supreme Court of Nevada did not address the merits of the termination, only its arbitrability under the CBA. View "JUVENILE JUSTICE PROB. OFFICERS ASSOC. VS. CLARK CNTY." on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization in Nevada, which owns and manages a temple, is governed by bylaws and led by an elected Management Committee. Certain general members, who previously served on the Management Committee, alleged that current management breached the organization’s bylaws. Specifically, they claimed that management formed unauthorized committees to transfer temple property into a trust without proper member approval, failed to issue membership cards and maintain records, and denied access to inspect corporate records. The members sought declaratory relief and alleged violations under Nevada corporate law.The case was first brought in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Management moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, which generally prohibits civil courts from resolving internal church disputes involving doctrine, governance, or religious law. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the claims could be resolved using neutral legal principles without delving into religious doctrine or practice.Petitioners then sought a writ of prohibition or mandamus from the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Nevada clarified that, while the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine restricts judicial intervention in religious disputes, an exception exists when courts can resolve a matter using neutral principles of law that do not require interpretation of religious doctrine, practices, or texts. The court held that this neutral-principles exception is not limited to property disputes but may apply to other matters, including corporate governance, so long as no ecclesiastical issues are implicated. Finding that the allegations in the complaint were secular and could be adjudicated on that basis, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed that the district court could proceed. View "SINGH VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A video showing a Clark County School District police officer forcefully detaining a juvenile outside a Las Vegas high school prompted public concern. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada requested records related to the incident from the school district. In response, the district provided only limited information, citing statutory privileges and ongoing internal investigations as grounds for withholding additional documents. The ACLU reiterated its request, seeking a detailed privilege log and specific justifications for each withheld record.After the school district produced a privilege log and maintained that certain records were exempt due to their role in an ongoing employment investigation, the ACLU filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County. Following briefing and a hearing, the district court ordered disclosure of certain records, such as body-worn camera footage, an incident report, and a dispatch log, with redactions. However, the court held that the internal affairs investigation report and the bulk of the investigative file were confidential under Nevada law and not subject to disclosure. The ACLU appealed this ruling.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. It interpreted the Nevada Public Records Act and NRS 289.080, concluding that an internal investigative file about a peace officer is confidential and exempt from public disclosure unless the investigating agency recommends punitive action against the officer. The Court reasoned that releasing records to the public when the subject officer does not have access would be illogical and inconsistent with legislative intent. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that such investigative files are exempt from disclosure to the same extent that their disclosure is barred under NRS 289.080. View "AM. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEV. VS. CLARK CNTY. SCHOOL DIST." on Justia Law

The decedent, a resident of Lyon County, Nevada, died intestate, leaving an estate valued at approximately $32 million. He was predeceased by his wife and had no children. The Lyon County Public Administrator identified the decedent’s living first cousins as potential heirs and petitioned the district court for an order confirming them as the legal heirs. Jamie Lipson, the child of one of the decedent’s predeceased first cousins (a first cousin once removed), contested this determination. Lipson argued that Nevada law should permit her and similarly situated relatives to inherit by right of representation, which would include more remote relatives in the distribution of the estate.The Third Judicial District Court of Lyon County determined that NRS 134.070 required distribution to the “next of kin in equal degree” on a per capita without representation basis. The court concluded that only the decedent’s living first cousins were entitled to inherit, thereby excluding Lipson and other first cousins once removed. The district court based its decision on the statutory language and longstanding state precedent, namely In re McKay’s Estate, which interpreted similar language as requiring per capita distribution.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The court held that NRS 134.070 unambiguously requires a per capita without representation distribution scheme. This means only those relatives of equal degree—the living first cousins—inherit equally, to the exclusion of more distant relatives such as first cousins once removed. The court reaffirmed the continuing validity of In re McKay’s Estate and found no compelling reason to depart from precedent or apply a per stirpes distribution. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order, upholding the exclusion of more remote kin from inheritance under the statute. View "In re Estate of Ulvang" on Justia Law

An experienced sports bettor placed two winning wagers—one boxed exacta and one boxed trifecta—on the 2019 Kentucky Derby at a nonpari-mutuel sports book operated by William Hill in Reno, Nevada. The sports book had house rules capping payouts for these wager types at 150-to-1 for exacta and 500-to-1 for trifecta, significantly lower than the full track odds. Multiple signs and betting sheets at the location indicated these limits, but the bettor claimed not to have seen the notices and argued he was entitled to full track odds.After William Hill denied the full track odds payout, the bettor filed a complaint with the Nevada Gaming Control Board. A Board agent investigated and found the signage at the sports book sufficiently disclosed the limited odds. The Board affirmed this finding after a hearing, concluding the signs were conspicuous and provided adequate notice. The bettor then petitioned the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, for judicial review. The district court upheld the Board’s determination, finding it supported by evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s affirmance of the Board’s decision. Applying a deferential standard of review, the court held that the Board’s findings were supported by evidence in the record, including the signage and house rules. The court further concluded that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, as it properly applied gaming regulations and contract principles. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the judgment, holding that the house rules, conspicuously displayed, controlled the payout terms of the bettor’s wagers, regardless of his actual knowledge. View "FRIEDLANDER VS. TAMARACK JUNCTION RACE & SPORTS BOOK" on Justia Law

A married couple had a child in Las Vegas, Nevada. Shortly after the child’s birth, the mother and child traveled to Canada, initially intending a temporary visit for a funeral. Their stay in Canada was extended unexpectedly due to circumstances including a home repair in Nevada and temporary employment, but the mother continued regular communications with the father and intended to return. During the extended stay, the couple’s relationship deteriorated. The mother filed for custody in a Canadian court, and the father, also in Canada, initiated a Hague Convention proceeding seeking the child’s return to Nevada. The Canadian court determined that the child was a habitual resident of Canada and denied the return request. The father appealed unsuccessfully and participated in the Canadian custody proceedings, contesting jurisdiction.After the failed Hague petition, the father filed for divorce, child custody, and child support in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. That court denied his motions, determining it lacked jurisdiction since significant proceedings were already underway in Canada and concluding Nevada was not the child’s home state. The father appealed, arguing that the district court wrongly declined jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the matter. It held that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the child’s absence from Nevada was temporary; thus, Nevada was the child’s home state for jurisdictional purposes when the custody action was filed. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order, concluding that Nevada did have home state jurisdiction. However, due to the Canadian court’s pending custody proceedings and the Hague determination, the Nevada court should consider whether to defer jurisdiction to Canada. The Supreme Court of Nevada remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to attempt communication with the Canadian court and to allow briefing on the most appropriate forum before determining whether to decline jurisdiction. View "Gill v. Gill" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, following the fatal stabbing of his former girlfriend. The incident occurred after the defendant, who was intoxicated, engaged in a confrontation with the victim and her husband at their residence. The defendant admitted to stabbing the victim, and the victim died from her wounds. Law enforcement apprehended the defendant shortly after the incident.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. During jury selection, the defendant raised a Batson challenge, arguing that the State used peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. The district court denied the challenge at step one, finding insufficient evidence to raise an inference of discrimination. The defense also moved to exclude testimony from a substitute coroner, challenged the admission of a transcript of a 911 call, and disputed limitations placed on their expert's testimony about intoxication. The district court allowed the substitute coroner to testify to her own opinions based on photographs and hospital records, permitted the jury to use the 911 call transcript as a listening aid, and limited but did not exclude the expert's testimony.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the Batson challenge at step one, as there was insufficient evidence of discriminatory purpose. The court found no Confrontation Clause violation in the substitute coroner’s testimony, as her opinion was based on independent review of admissible evidence. The court held that the limitation on the defense expert's testimony was erroneous under Nevada law but was harmless error. The court also found no abuse of discretion in providing the 911 call transcript to the jury and determined that no cumulative error warranted reversal. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the conviction. View "MATADAMAS-SERRANO (RUBEN) VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A business agreement was made in early 2020 for the rental of a yacht for an event. The agreement involved a payment of $18,280, which was to cover a deposit and a down payment toward the rental fee. The event was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the party that made the payment requested a refund. The yacht provider did not return the funds. The party seeking the refund sued under several theories, including unjust enrichment and breach of contract.After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo, and the matter proceeded under Nevada’s Short Trial Program. A short trial judge rendered a proposed judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this proposed judgment, but the short trial judge, after consulting with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, ruled on the objection and later denied the defendant’s NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, apparently approving the short trial judge’s proposed judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a short trial judge has authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed judgment and post-judgment NRCP 59 motions. The court held that under the plain language of NSTR 3(d), only the district court—not a short trial judge—may review and adjudicate objections to proposed judgments and NRCP 59 motions. The court found that the short trial judge exceeded her authority by ruling on these matters. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s judgment and the short trial judge’s post-judgment orders, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VEGAS AQUA, LLC VS. JUPITOR CORP." on Justia Law

A journalist requested internal affairs records from the City of Reno related to a former police officer, relying on the Nevada Public Records Act. After the City denied these requests several times, the journalist filed a petition with the Second Judicial District Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure. Instead of following the standard process that would have required the City to receive notice and an opportunity to respond before any court order, the journalist specifically asked for, and the district court granted, an ex parte alternative writ of mandamus. This writ ordered the City to either produce the records or appear at a hearing to show cause, but the district court did not explain why ex parte action was justified.Following the issuance of the ex parte writ, the City was served and attended the hearing, where it secured a continuance in order to seek relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada. The City then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that ex parte writs should only be issued in emergency or exceptional circumstances, and that the district court had erred by granting such relief without explanation.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that before issuing an ex parte alternative writ of mandamus—particularly in the context of public records requests under the Nevada Public Records Act—a district court must make specific findings as to why regular notice and an opportunity for the opposing party to be heard would be inadequate. The court clarified that ex parte relief is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is necessary and routine procedures are insufficient. Because the district court did not make such findings in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that it had manifestly abused its discretion and ordered the district court to vacate the ex parte alternative writ. View "CITY OF RENO VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A cable company employee discovered the appellant at his apartment with blood on his face, neck, and clothing, requesting police assistance after an incident involving his girlfriend. When officers arrived, they found the victim, Debra Shirron, dead in bed with visible injuries. The appellant was charged with first-degree murder of a victim 60 years of age or older and abuse of an older/vulnerable person resulting in substantial bodily or mental harm or death. At trial, the appellant claimed legal insanity and self-defense, citing a recent traumatic brain injury and consumption of marijuana brownies prior to the incident. Expert testimony presented conflicting views on whether the appellant’s delusions and violent behavior were caused by his brain injury, voluntary intoxication, or a combination of both.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. During the proceedings, the court allowed a replacement medical examiner to testify to possible causes of death beyond blunt force trauma, including asphyxiation and strangulation, without prior notice to the defense. The appellant objected to jury instruction 17, which addressed voluntary intoxication in relation to the insanity defense, arguing it conflicted with the legal definition of insanity. The objection was preserved, but the court overruled it. The jury convicted the appellant on both counts.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The Court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication could not be considered as part of an insanity defense unless it was not a contributing factor, which contradicted statutory law. The error was not harmless, as it likely had a substantial effect on the verdict. The Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. It also clarified that expert testimony at trial must be disclosed in accordance with statutory requirements. View "AUBRY VS. STATE" on Justia Law