Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Mother's motion to relocate the parties' minor child, M.M., to Virginia, holding that the district court followed the correct procedures.Mother moved to relocate with M.M. to Virginia Beach, Virginia because her husband was required to relocate for work there and Father would not consent to the relocation. The district court granted Mother's motion. At issue on appeal was the correct interpretation of the best interests provision of Nevada's child relocation statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.007(1)(b), including the application of the custody best interests factors as well as the applicable burden of proof necessary to satisfy section 125C.007(1). The Supreme Court held (1) Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.007(1)(b) requires the district court to make specific findings that relocation would be in the best interests of the child, which should include the custody best interest factors, and tie those findings to its conclusion; and (2) the applicable burden of proof for the threshold test is preponderance of the evidence. View "Monahan v. Hogan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part an interlocutory writ petition arising from a personal injury action in which Petitioner asserted that the district court improperly ordered that certain videos and reports were protected from disclosure as "work product" under Nev. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), holding that remand was required.Specifically, Petitioner argued that the district court erred in concluding that three surveillance videos and two related reports created by Petitioner's insurance company's investigators were subject to discovery and not protected from disclosure. The Supreme Court held (1) the first two videos and related report were not protected work product because their production was not directed by Petitioner's counsel; and (2) because the district court did not analyze whether the third video and accompanying report, which constituted work product, may nonetheless be discoverable upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship further proceedings were required. View "Keolis Transit Services, LLC v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court concluding that an arbitration provision was void under Nev. Rev. Stat. 597.995 for failure to include a specific authorization, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., preempted section 597.955, and therefore, the district court's decision was erroneous.Nev. Rev. Stat. 597.995 requires any agreement that includes an arbitration provision to include a specific authorization for that provision. The district court concluded that the arbitration provision at issue in this case was void for failure to include a specific authorization, as required by section 597.995. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because section 597.995 singles out and disfavors arbitration provisions by imposing stricter requirements on them than on other contract provisions, the FAA preempts the statute in cases involving interstate commerce; and (2) the district court erred by concluding that section 597.995 voided the parties' arbitration agreement. View "Maide, LLC v. Dileo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in dismissing Appellant's complaint alleging that EMTs wrongfully denied him medical treatment after concluding that Appellant's claims were barred by the public duty doctrine, Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.0336, and the Good Samaritan statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.500(5).In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants negligently misdiagnosed him and negligently denied him medical treatment because he was homeless and uninsured. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that, as a matter of law, Defendants could not be held liable for damages based on the public duty doctrine or the Good Samaritan statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order to the extent it dismissed Plaintiff's claims based on misdiagnosis but reversed it to the extent it dismissed claims based on socioeconomic discrimination, holding that a failure to render medical assistance or to transport a patient to the hospital based solely on their socioeconomic status may qualify as an affirmative act exempted from the public duty doctrine and as gross negligence, which would render the Good Samaritan statute inapplicable. View "Porchia v. City of Las Vegas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying judicial review from the determination of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUC) denying Southwest Gas Corporation's (SWG) request for reimbursement and setting a return on equity lower than what the utility had requested, holding that the PUC's decision was neither clearly erroneous nor constitutionally infirm.SWG attempted to recover its expenses and sought an increased rate of return on equity (ROE). The PUC ultimately determined that the utility did not justify the expenses it was seeker to recover, thus denying SWG's requests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) utilities to not enjoy a presumption of prudence with respect to their incurred expenses but must show that the expenses were prudently incurred; (2) this Court declines to adopt the constitutional fact doctrine; (3) the PUC's rate-setting procedures met due process requirements and the ROE the PUC selected was not a confiscatory taking; and (4) the PUC's decision to disallow the SWG to recover certain project expenses and additional pension expenses was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Southwest Gas Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that declaratory relief actions are not categorically exempt from statutes of limitations, that the four-year statute of limitations applies to an action like this one to determine the validity of a lien under Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.010, and that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the titleholder affirmatively repudiates the lien.In this declaratory relief and quiet title matter arising out of a homeowners association (HOA) foreclosure sale, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the questions leading to this opinion. The Supreme Court held (1) City of Fernley does not hold that declaratory relief actions are categorically exempt from statutes of limitations; (2) this is a quiet title action under Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.010; (3) the four-year catch-all statute of limitations applies; and (4) the four-year limitations period is not triggered until the titleholder repudiates the lien. View "U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Father's motion to modify the parties' physical custody designation and Father's child support obligation, holding that the new child support guidelines alone did not constitute a change in circumstances necessary to support a motion to modify a child support obligation.When the parties divorced, they agreed upon joint physical custody of their children. Father later filed a motion requesting that the court modify the order to reflect the parties' actual arrangement and to modify the child support obligations. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was no change in circumstances that warranted modifying custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that there was no change in circumstances that warranted modifying the child custody arrangement. View "Romano v. Romano" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that counsel's overt interjection of racial stereotypes into Appellant's criminal trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, and battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. In his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for introducing racial issues into the trial. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) counsel's statements impermissibly tainted the jury pool by introducing racial invective into the proceedings; and (2) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced the defense. View "Dean v. Narvaiza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the petition.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly robbery and other crimes. After a penalty phase retrial, the jury returned a death sentence. Appellant later filed a third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petition at issue on appeal. The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant could not rely on the alleged ineffective assistance of first postconviction counsel as good cause and prejudice to raise grounds for relief from the guilt phase of his trial; (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance claims of second postconviction counsel lacked merit; and (3) Defendant failed to show that the failure to consider his claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice sufficient to excuse the procedural bars to the petition. View "Chappell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's summary judgment as to damages for claims outside the two-year statute of limitations, holding that the court erred by tolling the statute of limitations far beyond two years based on an erroneous interpretation of the notice requirements of the Minimum Wage Act, Nev. Const. art. XV, 16.Respondents, the named representatives in this class action, were taxi drivers who brought suit against their former employer (Appellants) and its owner, alleging that Appellants failed to pay them minimum wage. The district court severed the claims against the owner and entered summary judgment for Respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) this matter was properly in front of the district court because plaintiffs in a class action may aggregate damages for jurisdiction; (2) the district court erred in tolling the statute of limitations; (3) damages were reasonably calculated; (4) claims against the owner were properly severed; (5) the attorney fees award and award of costs must be reconsidered; (6) the judgment was properly amended; and (7) the district court erred in denying a motion to quash a writ of execution without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "A Cab, LLC v. Murray" on Justia Law