Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus sought by the City of Henderson seeking to strike a petition for judicial review of an administrative zoning decision, holding that the district court erred in denying the City's motion to strike the petition for judicial review.Solid State Properties, LLC sued petitioner city of Henderson seeking damages and other forms of civil relief related to the nonenforcement of a zoning decision. After later developments to the zoning decision, Solid State filed an "Amended Petition for Judicial Review" challenging the zoning decision. The City filed a motion to strike the document, arguing that it was an improper attempt to file a new action within an existing matter. Specifically, the City argued that the civil action could not properly be coupled with a new action for judicial review of an administrative decision. The district court denied the City's motion and allowed the amended petition to proceed as part of the existing civil action. The City subsequently filed its petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted writ relief, holding that Solid State could not initiate judicial review proceedings within the existing civil action against the City, and the district court erred in denying the City's motion to strike the amended petition. View "City of Henderson v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's action arguing that a new election was required pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 293.465, holding that Appellant's challenge to the November 3, 2020 general election for Clark County Commission District C failed.Appellant ran in the general election for the Clark County Commission District C. Appellant lost by a margin of fifteen votes. In this action, Appellant argued that a new election was required because the number of irregularities in the conduct of the election exceeded the narrow margin of victory. The district court denied relief, finding that the election was not prevented within the meaning of section 293.465. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's challenge did not warrant a new election under section 293.465 because nothing "prevented" the election from occurring or voters from casting their votes; and (2) once an election takes place and the voters have voted, any challenge to the donut of the election must proceed by way of an election contest brought under Nev. Rev. Stat. 293.407-.435. View "Anthony v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that the juvenile court lacked authority to appoint a master to preside over the trial in the termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding.At issue whether having a hearing master preside over trial in a TPR proceeding satisfies the due process requirements in the Nevada Constitution. The Supreme Court held (1) due process requires the TPR trial to be heard before a district judge in the first instance; and (2) a hearing master cannot preside over a TPR trial pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B without infringing on a parent's constitutional right to procedural due process. The Court remanded the case for a new TPR proceeding. View "In re Parental Rights as to L.L.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Appellant's parental rights, holding that the district court's failure to apply Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.2(e)(4)'s mandate regarding disclosure of witnesses was harmless error.The State sought to terminate Appellant's parental rights, but the State did not disclose a nonexpert witness until after the trial had commenced. The district court, however, allowed the witness to testify at trial on the grounds that the nonexpert witness disclosure requirements in Rule 16.2(e)(4) do not apply to termination of parental rights proceedings. The district court ultimately terminated Appellant's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the nonexpert witness notice requirements in Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.2 apply to termination of parental rights proceedings; and (2) the district court erred by denying Appellant's motion in liming to exclude an unnoticed nonexpert witness during trial, but the error was harmless. View "In re Parental Rights as to T.M.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the provision in Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.006(1)(b) that a custodial parent who intends to relocate his or her residence to a place outside of the State and desires to take the child but the noncustodial parent refuses to consent to relocation must first petition the district court applies not only to relocation from Nevada to a place outside of Nevada but also from a place outside of Nevada to another place outside of Nevada.Mother was granted primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children after the parties' divorce. Mother later filed a petition under section 125C.006 for permission to relocate with the children from Nevada to Arizona. Mother subsequently moved to Arizona with the children. Mother later petitioned for permission to again relocate with the children, this time from Arizona to Ohio. The district court granted the petition, concluding that Mother did not need permission for the current relocation because the court had already granted her permission to move from Nevada. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Mother sought to move with the children to Ohio and Father did not consent, section 125C.006(1)(b) applied; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by failing to issue specific findings under the factors set out in Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.007. View "Pelkola v. Pelkola" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the supermajority provision of Nev. Const. art. IV, 18(2) applies to two bills passed in 2019 during the 80th session of the Nevada Legislature, holding that the district court correctly found that the bills were unconstitutional.Article 4, section 18(2) requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of the members of each house of the Nevada Legislature to pass any bill that "creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form." After the Legislature declared the two bills in this case (Senate Bills 542 and 551) passed and the Governor had signed them, the senators who voted against the bills brought this action asking the district court to invalidate the bills because they did not receive a supermajority vote in the Senate. The district court found that both bills generated revenue and were, therefore, subject to the constitutional supermajority provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on its plain language, the supermajority provision applied to the bills at issue, and therefore, the bills were unconstitutional; and (2) legislate immunity protected the individual defendants. View "Legislature of State of Nevada v. Honorable James A. Settelmeyer" on Justia Law

In this case examining the proper scope of compensatory fines and attorney fees imposed as sanctions in contempt proceedings the Supreme Court held that a contempt sanction requiring the condemner to pay money to the complainant is civil in nature and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Edward Detwiler in contempt but erred in requiring him to pay attorney fees incurred before his contempt began.In this case challenging the fraudulent sale of a vehicle, a Bank obtained an order requiring Detwiler to turn over certain cars. When the Bank was unsuccessful at securing Detwiler's compliance with the turnover order it moved to have Detwiler held in civil contempt of court. The district court held Detwiler in contempt and ordered Detwiler to pay the Bank's attorneys fees. Detwiler petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the contempt order. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court may correct a mistake in naming a party that causes no prejudice; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Detwiler in contempt; (3) compensatory sanctions for contempt are civil, not criminal; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by imposing an additional $100,000 sanction. View "Detwiler v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for fourth-degree arson, holding that although the district court clearly erred in rejecting Defendant's Batson objection to the State's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective alternate juror based on gender, the error was harmless.Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree arson. At issue on appeal was whether a discriminatory peremptory challenge used to remove a prospective alternate juror constituted structural error requiring reversal if no alternate deliberated with the jury. The Supreme Court held (1) there were compelling reasons to apply harmless-error review under these circumstances; and (2) the district court's error in rejecting Defendant's Batson objection to the prospective alternative juror based on gender, but the error was harmless because no alternate deliberated with the jury. View "Dixon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Appellant's petition to seal criminal records, holding that the district court misapplied the relevant statutes.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to a felony sexual offense that falls under a category for which criminal records are not subject to sealing. After successfully completing probation, Appellant withdrew his guilty plea and instead entered a guilty plea to unlawful contact with a child, a gross misdemeanor. Appellant subsequently filed this petition to seal his criminal records. The district court denied the petition, concluding that both the crime Appellant initially pleaded guilty to and the later pleaded crime were not subject to sealing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a withdrawn guilty plea cannot justify the denial of a petition to seal criminal records after a subsequent guilty plea; (2) gross misdemeanor unlawful contact with a child is not a crime for which record sealing is precluded under Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.245(6); and (3) Appellant was entitled to the presumption in favor of sealing criminal records under Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.2445(1). View "Tiffee v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, finding Defendant guilty but mentally ill on charges of first-degree murder and first-degree arson, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving an instruction on voluntary intoxication.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court misinstructed the jury on voluntary invocation and erred by denying his motion to vacate the jury's verdict and find him not guilty by reason of insanity. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for acquittal; and (2) Defendant could not demonstrate prejudice from the district court's inclusion of the challenged jury instruction. View "Kassa v. State" on Justia Law