Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against the State alleging that Nevada's system of public education had failed its students, holding that Plaintiff's claims were nonjusticiable.Appellants - nine parents of students attending public schools in the districts of Clark, Washoe, and White Pine Counties - sued State education agencies and officials alleging that Nevada's system of public education failed to achieve the standards that she argued were required for a sufficient, basic education under Nev. Const. art. 11, 1,2 and 6. In dismissing the complaint, the district court determined that the claims presented nonjusticiable political questions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants' complaint did not present justiciable questions appropriate for adjudication. View "Shea v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the district court denying Defendant's third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus without conducting an evidentiary hearing, holding that two of Defendant's claims warranted an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death for each murder. After a penalty phase retrial, the jury again imposed death sentences. In this postconviction relief proceeding, Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of second postconviction counsel and other claims. The district court summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) two of Defendant's ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claims warranted an evidentiary hearing; and (2) none of Defendant's remaining arguments warranted relief. View "Thomas v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the restitution portion of Defendant's judgment of conviction and remanded this case to the district court for further restitution proceedings, holding that restitution for a victim's medical costs is limited to the amount that the medical provider accepts as payment in full rather than the amount initially billed by the medical provider.Defendant pleaded guilty to reckless driving resulting in substantial bodily harm and agreed to pay restitution. After the sentencing hearing the district court ordered Defendant to pay $463,826 in restitution and sentenced him to thirty days in jail and five years' probation. The Supreme Court vacated the restitution portion of the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings on restitution, holding (1) a district court must offset the defendant's restitution obligation by the amount the defendant's insurer paid to the victim for losses subject to the restitution order; (2) the amount to be offset is limited to the portion the payments intended to compensate the victim for costs recoverable as restitution; and (3) the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing hearing in this case did not support the restitution award. View "Nied v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court determining that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing applied when it awarded delay damages to a subcontractor, holding that the district court properly determined that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing applied and that the contractor breached the covenant.At issue on appeal was (1) whether the district court properly applied the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it awarded delay damages to a subcontractor, and (2) whether the subcontractor waived its right to receive delay damages by signing a waiver and release to receive its retention. The Supreme Court held (1) the covenant of good faith and fair dealing allowed for the subcontractor to receive delay damages; and (2) the conditional release and waiver the subcontractor signed did not preclude it from receiving delay damages. View "APCO Construction, Inc. v. Helix Electric of Nev., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of forfeiture entered by the district court after determining that Nevada's homestead exemption may, as a general matter, protect against civil forfeiture, holding (1) there is no forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption, and (2) incarcerated individuals may still be deemed residents for purposes of the homestead exemption under Nev. Rev. Stat. 115.020.After Appellant had been arrested Elko County Sheriff's Office filed a complaint for forfeiture of the property. While in jail, Appellant recorded his initiated declaration of homestead. Appellant was subsequently convicted of a drug-related crime. While incarcerated, Appellant leased the property to a third party. After a trial, the district court awarded the sheriff a judgment of forfeiture. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a valid homestead is exempt from civil forfeiture; and (2) the property was a constitutionally-protected homestead because Appellant satisfied Nev. Rev. Stat. 115.020. View "Aguirre v. Elko County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's request for a declaration that Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.021 precluded Respondent from recovering its workers' compensation payments from Appellant's medical malpractice settlement proceeds, holding that the statute applies only to situations in which a medical malpractice defendant introduces evidence of a plaintiff's collateral source benefits.Appellant brought this action against Respondent asserting claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and claiming that Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.021(2) prohibited Respondent from asserting a lien against her settlement proceeds and seeking an injunction requiring Respondent to continue paying her workers' compensation benefits. The district court denied Appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Respondent's Nev. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) motion, concluding that section 42.021's plain language applied only to actions where third-party payments were introduced into evidence and did not apply to cases that settled before trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of sections 42.021(1) and (2) prohibits a payer of collateral source benefits from seeking reimbursement from a medical malpractice plaintiff only when the medical malpractice defendant introduces evidence of those payments. View "Harper v. Copperpoint Mutual Insurance Holding Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that traditional standing requirements may not apply when an appropriate party seeks to enforce a public official's compliance with Nevada's separation of powers clause, provided that the issue is likely to recur and there is a need for future guidance.Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Respondents' dual service as members of the state legislature and as employees of the state or local government violated the separation of powers clause in the Nevada Constitution. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, concluding that Appellant did not allege a personal injury for traditional standing and did not satisfy the requirements of the public importance exception to standing. The Supreme Court reversed after limitedly expanding the public importance exception in Nevada to cases such as the instant case, holding that the constitutional separation of powers challenge at issue met the requirements for the public-importance exception to standing. View "Nevada Policy Research Institute, Inc. v. Cannizzaro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for multiple charges and sentence of death for the murder of two people, holding that cumulative error deprived Defendant of a fair penalty hearing and that no relief was warranted on Defendant's claims regarding the guilt phase.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by prohibiting him from arguing during the penalty phase that if a single juror determines that there are mitigating circumstances sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, the jury must consider imposing a sentence other than death. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion by prohibiting Defendant's argument, and this error, in conjunction with other errors that occurred in the penalty phase, cumulatively deprived Defendant of a fair penalty hearing; but (2) no relief was warranted on Defendant's claims regarding the guilt phase. View "Barlow v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Respondent judgment creditor timely domesticated a foreign judgment in Nevada and that Respondent's accomplishment of actual service of the domestication notice on a later date did not affect the judgment's enforceability, holding that there was no error.Respondent domesticated the foreign judgment within the rendering state's statute of limitations but did not perfect service of the domestication notice on Appellant judgment debtor under the rendering state's limitations period for judgment enforcement had passed. The district court denied Appellant's motion to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act, a foreign judgment is enforceable in Nevada if the judgment domesticates the judgment according to the provisions of the Act within the rendering state's limitations period and complies with the statutory notice provisions of the Act; and (2) enforcement of the foreign judgment did not violate due process. View "Flangas v. Perfekt Marketing, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court on a defense verdict in this personal injury case, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on any of their claims of error.Plaintiffs Gavin Cox and Minh-Hahn Cox sued David Copperfield, both individually and through his corporation, for negligence and other tort claims for injuries that Gavin allegedly suffered at a magic show. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in the proceedings below and that Plaintiffs failed to show reversible error. View "Cox v. MGM Grand Hotel, LLC" on Justia Law