Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping with substantial bodily harm and possession of a controlled substance. Appellant appealed, arguing that Nevada lacked territorial jurisdiction to prosecute him for first-degree kidnapping with substantial bodily harm because the offenses originated in Illinois. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nevada had territorial jurisdiction over both the kidnapping charge and the substantial bodily harm enhancement because, while the kidnapping began in Illinois, it continued in Nevada, where Appellant restricted the victim from seeking medical treatment, causing the victim prolonged physical pain; (2) the State gave proper notice of grand jury proceedings; and (3) the district court’s mistake in failing to include second-degree kidnapping on the verdict form was not reversible error. View "McNamara v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. While he was still imprisoned, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and appeal deprivation. The district court granted the petition in part, concluding that Appellant was wrongfully deprived of an appeal. The court did not address Appellant’s other claims. Appellant then appealed from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After Appellant was released from physical custody, he filed a supplement to his petition for writ of habeas corpus, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the petition as moot because Appellant was no longer in custody, on probation, or on parole. The Supreme Court reversed, (1) a habeas petition challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction filed while the petitioner is imprisoned or under supervision as a probationer or parolee does not become moot when the petitioner is released if there are continuing collateral consequences stemming from that conviction; (2) a criminal conviction creates a presumption that collateral consequences exist; and (3) therefore, the district court erred in summarily dismissing the petition in this case as moot. View "Martinez-Hernandez v. State" on Justia Law

Tower Homes, LLC retained William Heaton and his law firm (collectively, Heaton) for legal guidance in developing a residential common ownership project. The project eventually failed, and Tower Homes entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The plan of reorganization and confirmation order stated that the trustee and bankruptcy estate retained all legal claims. The trustee subsequently entered into a stipulation with a group of creditors (collectively, the Creditors) permitting the Creditors to pursue any legal malpractice claims in the Tower Homes’ name. The bankruptcy court then entered an order authorizing the trustee to permit the Creditors to pursue Tower Homes’ legal malpractice claim in Tower Homes’ name. The Creditors subsequently filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Heaton, naming Tower Homes as plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Heaton, concluding that the stipulation and order constituted an impermissible assignment of a legal malpractice claim to the Creditors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the stipulation and order constituted an assignment, which is prohibited under Nevada law; and (2) the Creditors may bring a debtor’s legal malpractice claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(3)(B) when certain conditions are met, but those conditions were not met in this case. View "Tower Homes, LLC v. Heaton" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced while living in Nevada with their minor child. Mother eventually obtained sole custody and moved to England. Father, in the meantime, moved to Turkey. Father subsequently filed a motion to modify child custody and support. Mother filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court denied Father’s motion to modify child custody and granted Mother’s motion to dismiss, concluding that it lost jurisdiction to modify its decree when the parents and the child moved away from Nevada. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody, the court should have considered Father’s argument that, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court retained jurisdiction to ensure that another, more appropriate, forum existed to resolve the dispute; and (2) because the district court failed to exercise this jurisdiction, the cause is remanded for further proceedings. View "Kar v. Kar" on Justia Law

When Respondent defaulted on a commercial guaranty agreement with Bank, Bank sued Respondent. Bank’s complaint sought from Respondent the deficiency allowed by Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.495(4). On June 18, 2013 Bank proceeded to foreclosure sale. Bank acquired the property at foreclosure. On January 16, 2014, Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a deficiency judgment against Respondent. Respondent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Bank let more than six months elapse between the date of the foreclosure sale and the date it filed its motion for summary judgment, Bank forfeited its right to obtain a deficiency judgment by operation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455. Bank responded that its pre-foreclosure complaint satisfied all applicable requirements in Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 40. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent and against Bank. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bank’s complaint against Respondent for the deficiency allowed by section 40.495(4) satisfied the requirements of Chapter 40. View "Bank of Nevada v. Petersen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of, among other offenses, murder with the use of a deadly weapon and ten counts of discharging a firearm at or into a structure. On appeal, Appellant’s argued, inter alia, that double jeopardy precludes multiple convictions for discharging a firearm are impermissible based on multiple discharges that occurred in quick succession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the word “discharges,” as used in Nev. Rev. Stat. 202.285(1) unambiguously allows for a separate conviction each time a bullet leaves the gun, and therefore, Appellant’s ten convictions for discharging a firearm were not redundant; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and discharging a firearm into an occupied structure; and (3) the criminal information was not defective because it did not name the identity of a coconspirator. View "Washington v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants filed an inverse condemnation complaint against Washoe County alleging that the County approved subdivision maps, directed the flow of water, and accepted street dedications during the building process of two upstream developments that increased the flow of water to Whites Creek and caused flooding to Appellants’ property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Washoe County, concluding that the County’s approval of subdivision maps and acceptance of dedications did not constitute substantial involvement sufficient to support a claim for inverse condemnation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the County’s action constituted substantial involvement in the drainage system sufficient to support a claim for inverse condemnation. View "Fritz v. Washoe County" on Justia Law

Catherine Rodriguez defaulted on her loan and elected for foreclosure mediation. At a third, unsuccessful mediation between Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as the agent of the Bank of New York Mellon (BONY), and Rodriguez, Nationstar presented an uncertified, inaccurate copy of the promissory note. Thereafter, BONY filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure. Upon learning that the note presented at the third mediation was inaccurate, Rodriguez filed a petition for judicial review of the mediation against Nationstar and BONY (collectively, Nationstar). The district court excused the untimeliness of the petition based on good cause and found that the note’s certification was false and that Nationstar knew of the falsity. The court sanctioned Nationstar $100,000. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for judicial review because the filing of such a petition is not permitted beyond the thirty-day time period provided in Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Rule 21(2), even when a party discovers fraud months after the mediation. View "Nationstar Mortgage v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant for injuries she received during an accident. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $719,776. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by, inter alia, denying his motion for a mistrial due to jury indoctrination, dismissing jurors for cause that displayed concerns about their ability to award large verdicts, excluding evidence of Plaintiff’s medical liens, and awarding costs to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision as to the award of expert witness fees and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s questioning of the jurors during voir dire did not reach the level of indoctrination; (2) the district court erred by dismissing for cause five jurors, but the error was harmless; (3) the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of the medical lien’s existence to prove bias in Plaintiff’s medical providers, but the error was harmless; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by awarding Plaintiff expert witness fees in excess of $1,500 per expert because it did not state a basis for its award. View "Khoury v. Seastrand" on Justia Law

Kelli Barrett filed a complaint against Humboldt General Hospital and Dr. Sharon McIntyre, alleging, inter alia, battery based on an alleged lack of informed consent. Barrett filed the complaint without a supporting medical expert affidavit. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on Nev. Rev. Stat. 41A.071’s requirement that an expert affidavit be filed with “medical malpractice” actions. The district court denied the motion as to the battery claim. Defendants filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s denial of their motion as Barrett’s battery claim. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that a battery claim against a medical provider based on an allegation of lack of informed consent is subject to section 41A.071’s medical expert affidavit requirement. View "Humboldt Gen. Hosp. v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law