Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment for Respondents - Nevada Auto Dealership and its surety company, Corepointe Insurance Company - on Appellant's lawsuit brought under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA) and Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.600, holding that Appellant presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact under each of his claims.In his complaint, Appellant alleged that Nevada Auto knowingly failed to disclose material facts about a truck that it sold to him and misrepresented the truck's condition. The district court granted summary judgment for Respondents, concluding that Appellant's deceptive trade practices claims and equitable claims all failed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to each of Appellant's statutory claims. View "Poole v. Nevada Auto Dealership Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's timely petition for judicial review of an administrative decision, holding that because Appellant did not demonstrate good cause for untimely serving the petition the district court properly dismissed the petition.Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.130(5), Appellant had to serve its timely filed petition for judicial review within forty-five days. Appellant, however, served the petition fifteen days after the forty-five-day deadline had passed. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that Appellant did not effect service within the required deadline and did not show good cause to extend the service deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the forty-five-day service requirement is not a jurisdictional requirement because section 233B.130(5) affords the district court discretion to extend the time frame upon a showing of good cause; but (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant failed to show good cause under the circumstances. View "Spar Business Services, Inc. v. Olson" on Justia Law

In this case where Defendant was convicted of six counts of violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 202.360, which makes it a felony for certain categories of prohibited person to possess a firearm, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction as to counts one through three and reversed and remanded for a new trial as to counts four through six, holding that the State did not satisfy the status elements of the two groups of crimes Defendant was convicted of.Counts one through three charged Defendant with violating section 202.360(2)(a) for possessing firearms as a person who has "been adjudicated as mentally ill" by a state or federal court. The remaining counts charged Defendant with illegally possessing firearms based on his status as a person who is "an unlawful user" of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's assignment to and completion of a Nevada mental health court diversion program did not constitute an adjudication of mental illness that made his subsequent possession of a firearm a felony; and (2) the court erred in instructing the jury by theoretically allowing Defendant to be convicted of illegal possession of a firearm by an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance based on a single current use of the substance. View "Hager v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an order of the district court extending a temporary guardianship and denying a motion to dismiss, holding that the order was not independently appealable.Respondent filed a petition for the appointment of a temporary and permanent guardian of the person and estate of his mother, Appellant. Thereafter, the district court entered an order appointing a temporary guardian. Eventually, the district court set a hearing date to determine permanent guardianship. Defendant appealed the court's earlier order extending the temporary guardianship and denying a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the temporary guardianship order was not appealable. View "In re Guardianship of Wittler" on Justia Law

In this case concerning a mentally disabled passenger who suffered a non-transportation-related injury on the bus the Supreme Court determined that the district court erred by instructing the jury that the bus company owed a duty to "use the highest degree of care" toward the passenger, holding that the bus company did not need to do more than that which was reasonable under the circumstances in rendering aid to the passenger.The passenger, an intellectually disabled man, choked to death on a sandwich while riding on a paratransit bus operated by Defendant, the bus company. Plaintiffs sued Defendant's bus driver for negligence, arguing that Defendant, as a common carrier, owed the highest degree of care to monitor and assist the passenger while riding the bus. The jury found Defendant liable for the passenger's death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in instructing the jury that Defendant owed the passenger more than an ordinary duty of reasonable care under the circumstances; and (2) the erroneous instruction led the jury to misapply the "additional care" instruction applicable to the passenger. View "First Transit, Inc. v. Chernikoff" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the City of Mesquite's petition and issued a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate its order denying the City's motion to dismiss a local government employee's complaint alleging both that the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation, holding that there was not basis to allow the employee to proceed on the fair-representation claim in the district court.In denying the City's motion to dismiss the district court applied the six-year statute of limitations for contract claims. The City appealed, arguing that the claims were subject to a six-month limitations period under Nevada's Local Government Employee-Management Relations Act (EMRA) and federal labor law. The Supreme Court granted the City's petition for a writ of mandamus without reaching the statute of limitations questions, holding that there is no private cause of action to enforce a claim against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation in the first instance, but rather, the EMRA affords a local government employee an administrative process to bring such a claim. View "City of Mesquite v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Appellant of two counts of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon after adopting a framework for analyzing the appropriateness of juror anonymity, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it empaneled an anonymous jury by withholding the jurors' names and addresses from counsel.Due to concerns about juror privacy, the district court decided to impanel an anonymous jury and redact the jurors' names and addresses from juror questionnaires. After a trial, the empaneled jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of murder and found that Defendant had used a deadly weapon in the commission of the crimes. The district court sentenced Defendant to life without parole on each count. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in empaneling an anonymous jury, and its use satisfied the rule adopted today; (2) a district court has no statutory obligation to instruct a jury about the consequences of a deadly weapon enhancement; and (3) the district court did not err when it admitted as consciousness-of-guilt evidence two recorded conversations during which Defendant asked his associates to threaten a key witness. View "Menendez-Cordero v. State" on Justia Law

In this action to quiet title the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned the subject loan at the time of a homeowner association's (HOA) foreclosure sale such that the HOA sale purchaser took title to the property subject to the first deed of trust by operation of the 12 U.S.C. 4617(j)(3), commonly known as the Federal Foreclosure Bar, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Before the Court in this appeal were two issues related to the Federal Foreclosure Bar. The Supreme Court held (1) Nevada's recording statutes impose no requirement that Freddie Mac must be identified as the beneficiary on the publicly recorded deed of trust to establish its ownership interest in the subject loan; and (2) Freddie Mac's loan servicer did need not produce either the actual loan servicing agreement with Freddie Mac or the original promissory note to establish Freddie Mac's ownership interest in the loan because the loan provider introduced properly authenticated business records establishing that ownership interest. View "Daisy Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the judgment of the district court increasing Petitioner's bail from $25,000 to $100,000, holding that the district court failed to engage in a meaningful analysis to determine whether good cause was shown.In his petition, Petitioner argued that the district court lacked good cause to support the increase of his bail. The Supreme Court held that writ relief was warranted because (1) the district court increased the bail after making an initial bail determination, and therefore, the court was required to make a finding of good cause under Nev. Rev. Stat. 178.499(1) for the subsequent increase in bail; and (2) the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in increasing Petitioner's bail without explaining the good cause shown. View "Cameron v. District Court" on Justia Law

In this breach of contract action the Supreme Court reversed the portion of the district court's judgment awarding attorney fees as special damages, holding that attorney fees incurred by a plaintiff in bringing a two-party breach-of-contract claim against a defendant do not constitute special damages under the limited exceptions recognized by the Court.While Nevada adheres to the American Rule of attorney fees, the Supreme Court has recognized a narrow and limited exception for attorney fees as special damages. In the instant case, Plaintiffs brought an action against Defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and an accounting. The district court found in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded Plaintiffs attorney fees as special damages and because they were the prevailing parties pursuant to the contract. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) attorney fees was properly awarded based on the parties' contractual prevailing party provision; but (2) the district court erred in awarding Plaintiffs attorney fees as special damages for the two-party breach-of-contract action. The Court remanded the matter because the prevailing parties may be entitled to additional attorney fees in light of this opinion. View "Pardee Homes of Nevada v. Wolfram" on Justia Law