Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court granted a petition for mandamus challenging the district court's order awarding attorney fees as a sanction for work done by later-disqualified attorneys. The court held that the district court must consider the factors from the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers 37 cmt. d (2000) when awarding attorney fees sought for a disqualified law firm's work. In this case, the district court awarded the attorney fees without the benefit of these factors. View "Hawkins v. The Eighth Judicial District" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction for battery with the use of a deadly weapon. The court held that, within the context of battery, "deadly weapon" included an instrument which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing substantial bodily harm or death. The court has consistently defined "deadly weapon" according to both the functional and the inherently dangerous definitions, and thus the district court acted within its discretion in settling the jury instructions in the context of battery according to the functional definition. Therefore, the screwdriver defendant used was considered a deadly weapon. View "Rodriguez v. Nevada" on Justia Law

Due process required junior water rights holders in Diamond Valley be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in proceedings by the district court considering the curtailment of water rights. In this case, a vested, senior water rights holder has asked the district court to order the State Engineer to curtail junior water rights in the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court's consideration of the matter at the upcoming show cause hearing could potentially result in the initiation of curtailment proceedings. Therefore, junior water rights holders could possibly be deprived of their property rights and were entitled to due process. View "Eureka County v. The Seventh Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, mandamus challenging the district court's order in a medical malpractice case. Petitioner, a physician assistant, petitioned the court to determine whether the amendment to NRS 41A.017 clarified the existing definition of a provider of health care, so as to apply retroactively, or whether the amended definition operates prospectively only. The court held that the 2015 amendments expressly apply to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of the act, and thus petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that statutory amendments were applied prospectively. View "Segovia v. The Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion for expert services at public expense and to reconsider the motion. In Widdis v. Second Judicial District Court, 114 Nev. 1224, 968 P.2d 1165 (1998), the court held that, notwithstanding the ability to retain counsel, a defendant is entitled to reasonable and necessary defense services at public expense if the defendant demonstrates both indigency and a need for the requested services. In this case, the court clarified the definition of an indigent person as well as the demonstration of need sufficient for a request for defense services. The court made clear that Widdis does not require an indigent defendant to request a sum certain before a motion for defense services at public expense can be considered or granted. View "Brown v. The Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

In this commercial dispute over an exclusive use clause in a lease for space in a shopping center, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the doctrine of claim preclusion did not prevent the tenant from suing its landlord for contract damages after having won an earlier suit against the landlord for declaratory judgment, where both suits concern the same underlying facts. The court explained that the preclusion doctrine makes an exception for declaratory judgment actions, which are designed to give parties an efficient way to obtain a judicial declaration of their legal rights before positions become entrenched and irreversible damage to relationships occurs. Furthermore, in a case involving a continuing or recurrent wrong, a party may sue separately for after-accruing damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment awarding contract damages to the tenant. View "Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Group, LLC v. Higco, Inc." on Justia Law

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). In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court erred in concluding that NRS 604A.480 does not prohibit certain payday loan licensees from filing suit against borrowers who default on the loans. The state supreme court noted that the bar against future civil action on loans made under subsection 2(f) puts an end to the debt treadmill. Accordingly, the state supreme court reversed the judgment. View "Nevada Department of Business & Industry v. Dollar Loan Center, LLC" on Justia Law

In child custody cases, the focus of the court's inquiry must remain on the child's best interest and not the religious preferences of the parents. In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court treated one parent's religious objection as dispositive and failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the best interest of the child. The district court failed to support its order with factual findings and thus the state supreme court reversed and remanded for the district court to make such determination. View "Arcella v. Arcella" on Justia Law

The Constitution does not permit Nevada to award damages against California agencies under Nevada law that are greater than it could award against Nevada agencies in similar circumstances. Therefore, the Nevada Supreme Court's special rule of law that FTB was not entitled to a damages cap that a Nevada agency would be entitled to violated the Constitution's requirement that full faith and credit shall be given in each state. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada reissued its vacated opinion except as to the damages portions addressed by the Supreme Court and applied the statutory damages caps FTB was entitled to under Hyatt II. The state supreme court concluded that sufficient evidence supported a damages award up to NRS 41.035(1)'s $50,000 statutory cap and thus the district court should have awarded plaintiff damages in that amount for his intentional infliction of emotional distress claims; plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest on these damages awards; plaintiff was precluded from recovering punitive damages against FTB; costs awards were reversed and remanded for a new determination; and the district court's prior summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim for economic damages on plaintiff's cross-appeal affirmed. View "Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt" on Justia Law

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