Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this writ proceeding, the Supreme Court concluded that EDCR 5.518 required the district court, on remand from an earlier appeal and upon the request of Lynita Nelson, to reinstate a joint preliminary injunction (JPI) over the parties' respective spendthrift trusts.During their marriage, Lynita and Eric Nelson created two irrevocable self-settled spendthrift trusts. When the parties divorced, the district court issued a JPI. On remand, the Supreme Court vacated portions of the divorce decree regarding awards against the trusts. On remand, Lynita filed a motion under ECCR 5.518 to reinstate the JPI. The district court granted the motion in part and imposed a JPI over two trust properties. Lynita petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to impose a JPI under EDCR 5.518 over all property subject to a clam of community property interest. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that trust may be parties to a divorce action and that EDCR is mandatory, does not require the requesting party to make a prima facie showing of community interest, and applies on remand. View "Nelson v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus ordering that his conviction for misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence charge be vacated and that he receive a jury trial, holding that the new rule in Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 448 P.3d 1120 (Neb. 2019), applied to Petitioner.In Andersen, the Supreme Court announced that persons charged with a misdemeanor domestic battery offense are entitled to a jury trial. Anderson was decided three weeks after the district court affirmed Petitioner conviction of appeal. Petitioner then brought this petition arguing that the municipal court and district court erred by denying him a jury trial. The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, holding (1) Andersen announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure; and (2) because Andersen was decided before the time period to appeal had expired, Petitioner's conviction was not final and the rule in Andersen applied to his conviction. View "Hildt v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's shareholder complaint against Appellees, the individual directors of a corporation and its controlling stockholder, holding that Appellant failed to rebut the business judgment rule and allege particularized facts demonstrating the requisite breach of fiduciary duty.In her complaint, Appellant alleged breach of fiduciary duty and sought damages from a merger. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, determining that the business judgment rule applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nev. Rev. Stat. 78.138 and Chur v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 458 P.3d 336 (Nev. 2020), foreclose the inherent fairness standard that previously allowed a shareholder to automatically rebut the business judgment rule and shift the burden of proof to the director; and (2) the district court properly dismissed Appellant's complaint. View "Guzman v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question under Nev. R. App. P. 5 concerning an insurer's right to reimbursement, holding that when a party to a contract performs a challenged obligation under protest and a court subsequently determines that the contract did not require performance, the party may generally recover in restitution, thus giving effect to the terms of the parties' bargain.Insurer filed this declaratory judgment action seeking reimbursement of expenses it had occurred in defending Insured against a suit by a third party. The district court concluded that Insurer was not entitled to reimbursement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the suit did not trigger a duty to defend. The Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Ninth Circuit regarding the issue. The Supreme Court then held (1) no contract governed the right to reimbursement in this case; and (2) under the principle of unjust enrichment, a party that performs a disputed obligation under protest and does not in fact have a duty to perform is entitled to reimbursement. View "Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Access Medical, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the two-year limitations period of Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)(e) for commencing actions to recover for personal injuries or wrongful death is subject to equitable tolling and that Appellant failed to demonstrate that her circumstances warranted equitable tolling of section 11.190(4)(e).Plaintiff filed a civil torts complaint two and a half years after an alleged sexual assault occurred, alleging that Defendant sexually assaulted her. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)(e), which imposes a two-year limitations period for wrongful death and personal injury claims. In response, Plaintiff argued that the limitations period should be tolled. The district court granted Defendant's motion, finding that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 11.190(4)(e) is subject to equitable tolling; but (2) Plaintiff failed to meet the relevant tolling factors in this case. View "Fausto v. Sanchez-Flores" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for judicial review of an order of the Nevada Division of Insurance, holding that remand was required with the instruction that the district court grant judicial review in part.Choice Home Warranty (CHW) marketed and sold Home Warranty Administrator of Nevada, Inc. (HWAN)'s home warranty service contracts, in which HWAN was the obligor. The Department of Business and Industry, Division of Insurance filed a complaint alleging that HWAN, dba CHW, made false entries by answering no to a question in certificate-of-registration renewal applications, conducted business in an unsuitable manner, and failed to make records available to the Division. A hearing officer found that HWAN committed all of the alleged violations. The district court denied HWAN's petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) under Nev. Rev. Stat. 690C.150, a provider of home warranty services is not simply an entity that issues, sells, or offers for sale service contracts but the obligor in those contracts; (2) CHW was not an obligor so it was not a provider and need not have held a certificate of registration; and (3) HWAN did not act improperly by selling its contracts through an unregistered entity. View "Home Warranty Administrator of Nevada, Inc. v. State, Department of Business & Industry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a petition for a writ of mandamus stemming from lawsuits brought against generic drug manufacturers for selling vials of propofol to ambulatory surgical centers despite an allegedly foreseeable risk that they would be used on multiple patients, holding that some of the claims were preempted.Plaintiffs alleged that Petitioners knew or should have known that selling 50 mL vials of propofol, as opposed to 20 mL vials, to ambulatory surgical centers with high patient turnover was unsafe due to the risk of contamination from multi-dosing. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff's claims conflicted with federal law. The district courts summarily denied the motions to dismiss. Petitioners then filed the instant writ petition. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding (1) Plaintiffs' negligence cause of action and request for punitive damages survived; but (2) the remainder of Plaintiffs' causes of action were preempted. View "Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court properly determined that the allegedly defamatory statements made by Respondents Kay Zilverberg and Victoria Eagan fell within the protections of Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes and that Appellant Jason Smith did not demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claims.Appellant was a professional thrifter, and Respondents were thrifters. When Respondents criticized Appellant for bullying behavior Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Respondents' statements were false and defamatory. Respondents filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion and awarded Respondents attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly granted the anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss; and (2) Appellant failed to show with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claims. View "Smith v. Zilverberg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to a local teachers' union in this union contract dispute, holding that the local union validly terminated the contract and so was not contractually obligated to continue transmitting its members' dues to the state union.The Clark County Education Association (CCEA) was a local union representing teachers and other school district employees. The Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) and the National Education Association (NSA) were its statewide and national affiliates. NSEA and CCEA entered into a contract requiring CCEA to transmit NSEA and NEA dues after receiving them from the school district. In 2017, CCEA notified NSEA that it wanted to terminate the contract and negotiate new terms. No new agreement was forthcoming, but CCEA continued to collect union dues but placed the portion of the NSEA dues in an escrow account pending litigation. CCEA filed an action seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to transmit the money to NSEA. NSEA and NEA filed a separate action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted judgment to CCEA on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that CCEA lacked a contractual obligation to transmit the dues and properly placed them in escrow pending resolution of this dispute. View "Nevada State Education Ass'n v. Clark County Education Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus sought by Petitioner arguing that the district court was required to grant his release on bail under Nev. Const. art. I, 7, holding that the State's evidence was insufficient to defeat Petitioner's right to reasonable bail.Petitioner was charged by indictment with first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner filed motion to suppress his confession to the murder, which the district court granted. Thereafter, Petitioner moved to set reasonable bail on the basis that the State's proof was not evident, nor was the presumption great, that he committed the crime. The district court denied bail. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to rebut the presumption in favor of bail under Article 1, Section 7 and, therefore, the district court's denial of Petitioner's request for release on reasonable bail was contrary to law. View "Sewall v. District Court" on Justia Law