Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A Nevada district court’s order denying a motion dismiss was not a final judgment on the issue of demand futility. Therefore, it was proper for the district court to accord preclusive effect to a subsequent final judgment from a foreign court.In this case involving whether a Nevada district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss constituted a final judgment on the issue of demand futility, the Supreme Court held (1) Nevada hereby applies the definition set forth within section 13 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, and under the Restatement, a judgment is final within the context of issue preclusion if it is “sufficiently firm” and “procedurally definite” in resolving an issue; and (2) in the instant case, the district court’s order denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss reserved for future determination the issue of demand futility, and therefore, the district court properly held that its prior order did not prohibit it from according preclusive effect to the subsequent order of the federal court. View "Kirsch v. Traber" on Justia Law

The district court erred in invalidating a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw and suppressing the blood draw evidence because there was probable cause to support the search warrant.After failing a preliminary breath test (PBT) Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The results of the PBT were used to obtain a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw. The district court suppressed the PBT results, determining that they were obtained in violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court then suppressed the evidentiary blood draw, concluding that it was the fruit of an illegal search. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that the PBT results were obtained in violation of Defendant’s constitutional rights; but (2) there was probable cause to support the search warrant even without the PBT evidence, and therefore, the district court erroneously invalidated the search warrant and suppressed the subsequent blood draw evidence. View "State v. Sample" on Justia Law

The grounds on which the district court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of records where members of the Lyon County Board of Commissioners conducted county business on private cellphones and email accounts were erroneous.Appellant brought suit against the Board challenging its approval of a zoning change. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Lyon County to disclose all public records of the commissioners’ communications regarding the change to the county’s zoning plan, including the communications contained on the commissioners’ private cell phones and email accounts. In denying the petition, the district court reasoned that the records were not open to public inspection, within the control of the county, and records of official actions of the county or paid for with public money. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Nevada Public Records Act does not categorically exempt public records maintained on private devices or servers from disclosure. View "Comstock Residents Ass’n v. Lyon County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The time to appeal outlined in the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (JCRCP), specifically the five-day period set forth in JCRCP 98, is jurisdictional and mandatory, therefore removing for the district court’s jurisdiction an untimely appeal from justice court.Petitioner filed a small claims complaint against real party in interest Las Vegas Paving Corporation (LVPC). The justice of the peace pro tempore granted Petitioner full relief. LVPC appealed to the district court. Petitioner moved to have the appeal dismissed under JCRCP 98. The district court denied the motion, thereby exerting jurisdiction to hear the matter despite an untimely appeal. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arresting the district court’s improper exercise of jurisdiction or compelling the district court to grant his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that because LVPC filed its appeal outside the allotted five-day period, the district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain LVPC’s untimely appeal. View "Southworth v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

At issue was Nev. Rev. Stat. 453A.322(3)(a)(5)’s requirement that an applicant seeking to obtain a medical marijuana establishment registration certificate must obtain approval from the local government where the establishment is to be located verifying that the applicant is in compliance with applicable zoning restrictions and building requirements. Specifically at issue was whether this requirement must be satisfied before an applicant can receive a registration certificate. The Supreme Court held that it need not be satisfied and that the registration certificate is deemed provisional until the applicant is able to satisfy section 453A.322(3)(a)(5). View "Nuleaf CLV Dispensary, LLC v. State Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Public & Behavioral Health" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court overruling the State Engineer’s decision denying Rodney St. Clair’s application for a permit to temporarily change the point of diversion of the underground water source on property he purchased in 2013 from an abandoned well to another location on his property. The State Engineer found the prior owner of the property had established a right to appropriate the underground water but that a subsequent owner abandoned that right through years of nonuse. In overruling the State Engineer’s decision, the district court found insufficient evidence that any owner of the property intended to abandon the property’s water right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an extended period of nonuse of water does not alone establish clear and convincing evidence that a property owner intended to abandon a water right connected to the property; and (2) in this case, there was no additional evidence indicating an intent to abandon, and therefore, the State Engineer’s finding of abandonment was unsupported by substantial evidence. View "King v. St. Clair" on Justia Law

Here the Supreme Court provided guidance on how to calculate child support where both parents share joint physical custody of one child but one parent has primary physical custody of the other child.Upon their divorce, Mother and Father, the parents of two minor children, agreed to share joint physical custody of one of their children and that Mother would have primary physical custody of the other child. Mother appealed the district court’s child support award, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not providing specific findings of fact to explain the deviation from the amount of child support owed under the statutory guideline and that the amount of child support was unreasonable. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s child support award and remanded with instructions after setting forth the proper calculation for child support under the circumstances presented by this case. View "Miller v. Miller" on Justia Law

Zenor was employed by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) when he injured his wrist on the job. Eleven months later, Zenor underwent an examination and received an evaluation by his treating physician, Dr. Huene, who determined Zenor was not yet capable of performing his pre-injury job duties. Two months later, Dr. Huene again examined Zenor and determined he could fully use his wrist with a brace as needed. Less than one month later, Dr. Huene released Zenor "without limitations." Zenor delivered the full release to NDOT that same day. NDOT nonetheless commenced proceedings and separated him from employment for medical reasons. An administrative hearing officer reversed. The district court affirmed. Zenor sought attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) on the ground that NDOT unreasonably brought its petition to harass him. The court held that NRS 233B.130 prohibited attorney fees in a judicial action of a final agency decision. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. NRS 233B.130(6), which states that the provisions of NRS Chapter 233B provide the exclusive means of judicial action in a petition for judicial review, prohibits an award of attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) in petitions for judicial review. View "Zenor v. State of Nevada Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Enacted in 2005, in response to the "debt treadmill," NRS Chapter 604A regulates the payday loan industry, including deferred deposit loans and loans with an annual interest rate greater than 40 percent. If a borrower cannot repay such a loan within 35 days, NRS 604A.480 subsection 1 allows for an extension but a licensee cannot extend the period beyond 60 days and cannot "add any unpaid interest or other charges accrued ... to the principal amount of the new deferred deposit loan or high-interest loan." However, under subsection 2, certain new deferred deposit or high-interest loans are exempt from those restrictions: A licensee may offer a new loan to satisfy an outstanding loan for a period of not less than 150 days and at an interest rate of less than 200 percent. The licensee must follow all of subsection 2's requirements for the new loan to be exempted. Subsection (2)(f) permits a loan under subsection 2 if the licensee does “not commence any civil action or process of alternative dispute resolution on a defaulted loan or any extension or repayment plan thereof." Reversing the district court, the Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 604A.480(2)(f) bars a licensee from bringing any type of enforcement action on a refinancing loan made under NRS 604A.480(2) and is not merely a condition precedent to making a refinancing loan under the subsection. View "State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Financial Institutions Division v. Dollar Loan Center., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of one count each of conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon and two counts each of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and murder with the use of a deadly weapon. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court violated right to a public trial by closing the courtroom to members of the public during jury selection without making sufficient findings to warrant the closure. The Supreme Court held that, under Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010), this violation constituted structural error, but because Defendant did not preserve the error for appellate review, under Nevada law, Defendant must demonstrate plain error that affected his substantial rights. Following the United States Supreme Court’s guidance in Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. __ (2017), the Supreme Court held that Defendant failed to satisfy plain error review. Further, Defendant was not entitled to relief on his other claims, and Defendant’s death sentences were supported by review of the record under Nev. Rev. Stat. 177.055(2). View "Jeremias v. State" on Justia Law