Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this divorce action in which Wife filed first in California and Husband filed second in Nevada, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the Nevada case, holding the the district court erred by dismissing the case immediately after the judge made a personal phone call without providing the parties an opportunity to respond.The district court judge in this case called the California superior court judge, discussed the case with the California judge, and then after verifying that the California case was filed first, dismissed the Nevada case. Neither Husband nor Wife was present or represented during the call. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a district court may not independently investigate facts in a pending matter by communicating ex parte with another court without giving the parties an opportunity to respond; and (2) where the same action is filed in two courts, and a party contests the first court's jurisdiction, the second court should ordinarily stay the action to permit the first court to decide the issue of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to enter a stay. View "Mesi v. Mesi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court concluding that a residual beneficiary's objection to the second and third amendments to the Ella E. Horst Revocable Trust was time-barred under Nev. Rev. Stat. 164.021(4), holding that the objection was timely.Following the settlor's death, Respondent, the trustee, sent notice of irrevocability to the Trust's beneficiaries pursuant to section 164.021. The notice included copies of the original Trust and the Trust's first three amendments. Sixteen months later, Respondent petitioned to confirm a purported fourth amendment to the Trust. Appellant, a residual beneficiary, filed an objection, alleging that the second through fourth amendments were the product of undue influence. The district court confirmed the original Trust and its first three amendments, concluding that Appellant's objection to the amendments was time-barred under section 164.021(4), which provides a window of 120 days from service of the notice of irrevocability for bringing an action to challenge a trust's validity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) to trigger the 120-day limitation period under section 164.021(4), the trustee's notice must include all trust provisions pertaining to the beneficiary; (2) because Respondent's initial notice to beneficiaries did not include the purported fourth amendment, the notice did not trigger the 120-day limitation period; and (3) therefore, Appellant's objection was timely. View "In re Estate of Horst Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed in this case that undocumented aliens who are injured while working for a Nevada employer may be eligible for monetary disability benefits, holding that these monetary benefits, paid by the insurer, do not conflict with federal law or undermine the Legislature's intent.Respondent, an undocumented Nevadan, was severely injured while working for High Point Construction and applied for permanent total disability (PTD) status. Associated Risk Management (ARM), High Point's insurance administrator, denied the request. An appeals officer reversed and granted Respondent PTD status pursuant to the "odd-lot doctrine." ARM petitioned for judicial review, arguing that the appeals officer committed legal error by granting PTD to an undocumented alien. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) undocumented aliens are not precluded from receiving disability benefits under Nevada's workers' compensation laws; (2) although federal law prohibits employers from knowingly employing an undocumented alien, it does not prohibit insurers from compensating undocumented aliens for injuries they sustain while working; and (3) the appeals officer's decision was based on substantial evidence. View "Associated Risk Management, Inc. v. Ibanez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiffs on their Title IX and 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against a school district for student-on-student harassment and remanded for further findings on the Title IX claim, holding that the district court erred by concluding that Plaintiffs established each of the elements on the section 1983 claim.Plaintiffs, two students and their parents, brought these claims for harassment after two sixth-graders targeted the students with sexual slurs, other insults, and physical assaults. After a bench trial, the district court found for Plaintiffs on both their Title IX and section 1983 claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Title IX's protections against sex-based discrimination extend to prohibit discrimination against homosexual and transgender individuals and discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation; (2) the district court properly found that the harassment in this case was "on the basis of sex for purposes of Title IX; (3) remand was required for further findings on the Title IX claim; and (4) the district court erred in relying solely on the violation of state law to satisfy "deliberate indifference," an essential element of both the Title IX and section 1983 claims. View "Clark County School District v. Bryan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Rajwant Kaur's motion to set aside a 2004 divorce decree, holding that the district court erred because it did not consider the traditional judicial estoppel factors before considering Rajwant's defense of duress and coercion.In 2004, Rajwant and Jaswinder Singh filed a joint petition for divorce. The district court entered the divorce decree without holding a hearing. In 2019, Rajwant filed a motion to set aside the 2004 divorce decree, arguing that Jaswinder forced her to sign the divorce decree so it was obtained by fraud. The district court denied the motion, finding that, under Vaile v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 44 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2002), Rajwant was judicially estopped from challenging the decree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erroneously applied Vaile, in concluding that judicial estoppel precluded Rajwant's motion and failed to consider whether the five-factor test favored application of judicial estoppel. View "Kaur v. Singh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of conspiring with a hitman to have his sixth wife murdered during a staged burglary and then murdering the hitman, holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain prior bad act evidence.At issue was the admission of events surrounding the death of Defendant's second wife. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was inadmissible under Nev. Rev. Stat. 48.045(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed any probative value of the disputed evidence, and the district court abused its discretion by allowing its admission; and (2) the error in admitting the prior bad act evidence was not harmless. The Court remanded the matter for a new trial. View "Randolph v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to recognize and enforce in Nevada the disgorgement portion of a securities-fraud judgment from British Columbia, holding that the district court properly recognized the disgorgement judgment.On appeal, Appellant argued that the disgorgement judgment was in the nature of a fine or penalty, and therefore, it should not be enforced outside Canada. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the British Columbia judgment did not constitute an unenforceable penalty because the primary purpose of the disgorgement award was remedial in nature, not penal; and (2) even crediting the argument that Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.740(2)(b) takes the disgorgement judgment outside Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.750(1)'s mandatory recognition provisions, the district court properly recognized it as a matter of comity. View "Lathigee v. British Columbia Securities Commission" on Justia Law

In these two personal injury disputes the Supreme Court denied Petitioners' petition for a writ of mandamus demanding that the Supreme Court reverse the district court's order denying their two motions to strike requests for trials de novo in their cases, holding that Petitioners did not offer any cogent, compelling reason for the Supreme Court to issue mandamus.In separate incidents, John Walker sustained injuries when Sheila Michaels collided with him, and Ralph Ortega received injuries after Katheryn Fritter rear-ended his vehicle. Walker sued Michaels, and Ortega sued Fritter. Both cases proceeded to arbitration. Michaels and Fritter each served offers of judgment, which Walker and Ortega, respectively, rejected. Ultimately, the arbitrators in Walker's and Ortega's cases found in their favor. Because Farmers Insurance insured both Michaels and Fritter, the same attorney, McMillen, represented the interests of both defendants. McMillen sought trials de novo in both cases. Walker and Ortega filed motions to strike the requests. After the district court rejected the motions to strike, Walker and Ortega filed this petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court denied their petition, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a basis for the Supreme Court to grant either a traditional or advisory writ of mandamus. View "Walker v. Second Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of driving and/or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or alcohol resulting in substantial bodily harm entered upon an Alford plea, holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.When he entered his Alford plea, Defendant was informed that he faced a mandatory fine of up to $5,000 but was not informed that the fine would be at least $2,000. Defendant filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he did not understand the consequences of his plea because he did not know the mandatory minimum fine for the offense was $2,000. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because a fine is a form of punishment, a defendant must be informed of any mandatory minimum fine in order to be fully informed of the direct consequences of a plea; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Banka v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a creditor of a settlor may bring a claim against a settlor of a trust so long as the settlor's interest in the trust is not solely discretionary and there is not a spendthrift provision precluding payment of the claim and that where a trust provides broad discretion to its trustees, the trustees may approve a creditor's claim against the trust.At issue was whether a creditor may satisfy its claim against the settlor's trust where the trust does not specifically provide for payment of the claim but the trustees approve the payment. The district court ordered frozen trust funds be released to pay the creditor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) both parties had standing to maintain this action, and the appeal is not moot; (2) the trust allowed for payment of the creditor's fees; (3) the creditor satisfied the procedural requirements to file a creditor's claim; and (4) the trustees had broad discretion to approve the creditor's claim. View "In re Christian Family Trust" on Justia Law