Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case brought by the parents of a victim of the Route 91 Harvest Festival massacre against the manufacturers and distributors of the AR-15 rifles the gunman used the Supreme Court held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.131 provided the gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from the claims asserted against them under Nevada law.Plaintiffs brought this suit in Nevada's federal district court alleging wrongful death, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment. The federal district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the negligent entrustment and negligence per se claims but denied it as to the wrongful death claim. The federal court then reconsidered its dismissal of the negligence per se claim and certified three questions of law to the Supreme Court. In response, the Supreme Court held that section 41.131 provided the gun companies immunity from the wrongful death and negligence per se claims asserted against them under Nevada law. View "Parsons v. Colt's Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint alleging slander and conspiracy, holding that Defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged communication leading to the civil complaint was made in good faith.At issue was how the district court at step one of the anti-SLAPP evaluation should proceed when Defendant denied making the alleged statement. The district court used Plaintiff's version of the alleged defamatory statement during its step-one analysis and then denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's denial that he made the alleged statement was irrelevant to step one of the anti-SLAPP analysis; (2) Defendant's alleged statement did not constitute a nonactionable opinion; and (3) the district court correctly denied Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. View "Spirtos v. Yemenidjian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court determining that a proceeding before a citizen review board does not warrant tolling the statute of limitation under this Court's holding in State, Department of Human Resources v. Shively, 871 P.2d 355 (Nev. 1994), or under equitable tolling principles, holding that the district court did not err.Appellant filed a citizen complaint with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) Citizen Review Board (CRB) after an adverse encounter with LVMPD police officers. The CRB recommended additional officer training. Appellant later filed a civil complaint against LVMPD and the two officers (LVMPD respondents), claiming battery, false imprisonment, and negligence. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that the complaint was time-barred and that equitable considerations did not favor tolling. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Shively did not provide grounds for tolling the statute of limitations, and Appellant failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. View "Wilson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep't" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order granting summary judgment in this construction defect action brought by Appellant against Respondents, holding that the district court erred in denying Appellant's motion to alter or amend the judgment.Appellant, a homeowners' association, brought this construction defect claim against the builders of the Panorama Towers. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that the construction defect claim was time-barred under the statute of repose in Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.202(1). The district court granted summary judgment for Respondents. Appellant subsequently filed two motions to alter or amend the summary judgment, but before the district court considered the second motion (1) the legislature amended the statute of repose to extend the filing deadline, specifying that the amendment was retroactive, and (2) the amended statute became effective. The district court denied the second motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the amended statute of repose, Appellant's construction defect claim was timely. View "Panorama Towers Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. Hallier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual assault, battery with the intent to commit sexual assault upon a victim age sixteen or older, and open or gross lewdness, holding that Defendant was not denied a fair and just sentencing hearing.At issue on appeal was whether Defendant's right to be present was violated when the sentencing hearing was conducted by simultaneous audiovisual transmission over the Zoom videoconferencing platform because of the district court's administrative orders forbidding in-person hearings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentencing hearing was fair and just considering the surrounding circumstances; (2) the district court properly admitted evidence of Defendant's previous conviction for battery with intent to commit sexual assault; and (3) the district court did not err in limiting inquiry into Defendant's prior conviction that the court had determined would be admitted as evidence. View "Chaparro v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court returning a $5.9 million verdict in favor of Plaintiff on his negligence action, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.An employee of Defendant collided the forklift he was driving with Plaintiff's vehicle, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action, alleging negligence. The case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff, and the district court awarded Plaintiff $2.3 million in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) imposed sanctions within its discretion; (2) did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) did not err by concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to recover the entirety of his contingency fee from the verdict under Nev. R. Civ. P. 68. View "Capriati Construction Corp. v. Yahyavi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to Respondent against Appellant pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 after Appellant rejected an offer of judgment and was unsuccessful at trial, holding that the district court erred.At issue was whether the district court improperly offset Appellant's settlement funds from a third party in favor of first satisfying Appellant's judgment for attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court held that it did and reversed the district court's order as to the offset, holding (1) a party cannot make a claim for attorney fees and costs - and thus the district court cannot offset - against settlement funds from a third party that have not been reduced to a judgment; and (2) for an equitable offset to apply, there must be competing judgments between the parties that are mutually owed and mutually demandable. View "Harrison v. Ramparts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered certified questions brought to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as to whether, in Nevada, the insured or the insurer has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion of coverage provision applies.The Ninth Circuit asked whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured and whether the party that bears that burden may rely on extrinsic evidence to carry its burden. The Supreme Court answered (1) the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion for coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insured; and (2) the insured may rely on any extrinsic evidence that was available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the defense to the insurer. View "Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that divorce jurisdiction requires mere residence - not domicile - and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case under Nev. Rev. Stat. 125.020.Appellant and Respondent married in Saudi Arabia. In 2018, Respondent obtained a student visa and moved to Las Vegas. In 2020, Appellant and the child obtained dependent visas and also moved to Las Vegas. Two months later, Appellant filed a complaint for divorce. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Appellant could not establish domicile - or intent to remain in Nevada - so that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 125.020. The district court granted the motion, finding that, because residence is synonymous with domicile under section 125.020 and neither party had established domicile as a matter of law, dismissal was necessary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under section 125.020, residence means mere residence - not domicile - and Nev. Rev. Stat. 10.155 defines residence as physical presence; and (2) because Appellant had been physically present in Nevada for at least six weeks before she filed her divorce complaint, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 125.020. View "Senjab v. Alhulaibi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of two counts of driving under the influence resulting in death and one count of felony reckless driving but vacated his sentence, holding that the district court wrongly considered certain statements during sentencing.Under Nev. Const. art. I, 8A, also known as Marsy's Law, and Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.015 victims are afforded the right to be heard at sentencing. At issue was how to reconcile the provisions' different definitions of "victim." The Supreme Court held (1) neither definition includes anyone and everyone impacted by a crime, as the district court found in this case; (2) when presented with an objection to impact statements during sentences, a district court must first determine if an individual falls under either the constitutional definition or the statutory definition of "victim," and if the statement is from a nonvictim, the district court may consider it only upon a determination that the statement is relevant and reliable; and (3) the district court erroneously considered statements, over objection, from persons who do not fall under either definition of victim without making the required relevance and reliability findings. View "Aparicio v. State" on Justia Law