Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue was when it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to grant extraordinary relief in the form of advisory mandamus.In this petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging the district court’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to direct the district court to vacate and reconsider its motion without applying the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling to their statute of limitations defenses. The Supreme Court declined to grant relief relief because (1) the district court did not consider the statute-based argument Petitioners made to the Supreme Court due to Petitioners’ failure to cite the statute until the hearing on their motion to dismiss; (2) this court’s clarification of the law would not alter the district court’s disposition; and (3) the district court’s decision to defer final decision on Petitioners’ statute of limitations defenses pending further factual and legal development was sound and not the proper basis for extraordinary writ relief. View "Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated and reversed in part Defendant’s convictions of child abuse and neglect, twenty-nine counts of use of a child in the production of pornography, ten counts of possession of visual presentation depicting the sexual conduct of a child, and open or gross lewdness. The court held (1) the State properly charged Defendant with two counts of violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.710(2) for each video file that depicted two minors; (2) Defendant was improperly convicted under section 200.730 on a per-image basis without showing the mechanics of how Defendant recorded and saved the various video files and digital images of children on his laptop; (3) Nevada’s statutes barring the “sexual portrayal” of minors do not implicate protected speech and are not unconstitutionally vague; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. 201.210; and (5) Defendant’s asserted trial errors did not warrant reversal. View "Shue v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order granting Respondent’s petition for judicial review filed under Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B, the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (APA), holding that the application process provided by Nev. Rev. Stat. 453A.322 does not constitute a contested case as defined by Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.032, and therefore, the district court did not have authority to grant APA-based relief.Respondent petitioned for judicial review of the Nevada Department of Health and Human Service’s decision not to issue it a Las Vegas registration certificate authorizing it to operate a medical marijuana dispensary. Respondent’s petition was based exclusively on the Nevada APA. The Department moved to dismiss, arguing that the APA only affords judicial review in contested cases, which the marijuana dispensary application process does not involve. The district court granted judicial review and directed the Department to reevaluate Respondent’s application. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the APA did not afford Respondent the right of review it sought. View "State, Department of Health & Human Services v. Samantha Inc." on Justia Law

Nevada’s medical marijuana registry does not violate the Due Process, Equal Protection, or Self-Incrimination Clauses of the United States or Nevada Constitutions.Appellant in this case applied for and received a registry identification card. Thereafter, Appellant filed suit against the Nevada Legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, Respondents) arguing that the medical marijuana registry and its associated fees violated his due process and equal protection rights and his right against self-incrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nevada’s medical marijuana registry does not impinge upon a fundamental right; (2) the registry is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and (3) the registry does not violate a registrant’s right against self-incrimination. View "Doe v. State ex rel. Legislature of 77th Session" on Justia Law

In this custody case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to provide recordings of conversations between Father’s child and his ex-wife surreptitiously recorded by Father to a psychologist appointed by the court to evaluate the child’s welfare.The stipulated divorce decree between the parties awarded them joint physical custody of their child. Father later moved to modify those terms to get primary physical custody. During the custody proceeding, Father filed a motion to admit the recordings at issue into evidence. The district court denied Father’s motion to admit the recordings into evidence but nonetheless provided the recordings to a psychologist, whom the court had appointed to interview and evaluate the child. The psychologist testified that Wife’s behavior was creating confusion and distress in the child, basing her opinion in part on the recordings. Thereafter, the district court determined that it was in the child’s best interest that Father be awarded primary physical custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in providing the recordings to the expert because they furthered the expert’s evaluation of the child’s relationship with his parents and aided the district court’s determination as to the child’s best interest. View "Abid v. Abid" on Justia Law

Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.140, which allows for assessment of attorney fees in a private cause of action for recovery of unpaid wages, explicitly recognizes a private cause of action for unpaid wages, and accordingly, Nev. Rev. Stat. chapter 608 provides a private right of action for unpaid wages.Petitioner filed a class-action complaint against real party in interest Terrible Herbst Inc. alleging, among other causes of action, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, and failure to timely pay all wages due and owing, all in violation of various provisions of Chapter 608. All of Petitioner’s Chapter 608 claims also referred to Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.140. The district court dismissed Petitioner’s Chapter 608 claims on the basis that no private right of action exists. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief and instructed the district court to vacate its order dismissing Petitioner’s claims, holding that Petitioner has and properly stated a private cause of action for unpaid wages. View "Neville v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied in part and granted in part a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition filed by Petitioner, an attorney who was being investigated by the State Bar of Nevada for potential ethical violations after he testified at his personal bankruptcy proceedings that he had not implemented a reliable or identifiable system of accounting for his client trust account. The State Bar served Petitioner with two subpoenas duces tecum seeking production of client accounting records and tax records. Petitioner objected to the subpoenas, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The chairman of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board (Board) rejected Petitioner’s objections to the subpoenas. This petition for writ relief followed. The Supreme Court held (1) with regard to the requested client accounting records, this court adopts the three-prong test under Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968), to conclude that the right against self-incrimination does not protect Petitioner from disclosure; but (2) with regard to the requested tax records, the Board must hold a hearing to determine how the records are relevant and material to the State Bar’s allegations against Petitioner and whether there is a compelling need for those records. View "Agwara v. State Bar of Nevada" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by Parent challenging the district court’s placement decision following the termination of Parent’s parental rights where Parent entered into a stipulation agreeing to the termination of her parental rights but reserving the right to participate in a contested pre-termination hearing regarding the child’s placement. The Supreme Court held that Parent lacked standing to challenge the placement decision because Parent’s parental rights were clearly terminated, and therefore, Parent no longer had any substantial interest that could be affected by the court’s placement decision. Further, the Supreme Court’s prior order denying writ relief did not confer standing on Parent. View "In re Parental Rights as to T.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for burglary, robbery, coercion, and other crimes and Appellant’s sentence as a habitual criminal. The court held (1) contrary to Appellant’s argument on appeal, the district court properly considered Appellant’s prior conviction from 1984 in sentencing Appellant as a habitual criminal because the conviction was not stale, and the prior conviction resulting from an offense Appellant committed as a minor could be used for habitual criminal sentencing; (2) Appellant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (3) because there was no error established by Appellant on this appeal, there was none to cumulate. View "Mullner v. State" on Justia Law

The general rule of privilege between psychologist and patient set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 49.209 applies when a criminal defendant seeks records related to a patient who is court-ordered to partake in therapy.J.A., a minor, was placed on probation for soliciting prostitution. As a condition of probation, J.A. was required to complete counseling with Dr. Shera Bradley. Based on J.A.’s statements to the police, Dontae Hudson was charged with first-degree kidnapping, sex trafficking of a child under the age of sixteen, and related crimes. Hudson filed a motion for discovery, including requests for J.A.’s counseling records. The district court ordered that Dr. Bradley disclose J.A.’s counseling records for in camera review. Dr. Bradley filed this petition for relief in the form of a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the discovery order. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the clerk of court to issue a writ of prohibition ordering the district court to halt the production of the documents, holding that the psychologist-patient privilege applies to J.A. and Dr. Bradley’s confidential communications, and Hudson failed to show that an exception to the privilege applied or that the privilege was waived. View "Bradley v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law