Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was evicted from all properties owned, operated, or managed by Caesers Entertainment Corporation, which owns and operates a number of casinos throughout the United States. Plaintiff filed this action alleging that, under the common law and Nev. Rev. Stat. 463.0129(1)(e), Caesars could not exclude him without cause. The district court granted Caesars’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to section 463.0129, gaming establishments generally have the right to exclude any person from their premises, but the reason for exclusion must not be discriminatory or unlawful; and (2) Plaintiff failed to plead or demonstrate that his exclusion from Caesars’ properties was for unlawful reasons, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. View "Slade v. Caesars Ent. Corp." on Justia Law

Mark Anderson filed a complaint for divorce from Sophia Sanchez. The parties agreed to mediation to discuss the distribution of their assets and debts. The parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) memorializing their agreement. As to certain property (the Wilson property), the MOU stated that it was owned by the parties’ trust and that the property would be awarded to Mark in exchange for a payment to Sophia representing half of the property’s net value. Mark subsequently moved to set aside the MOU as unenforceable, arguing that his sister, Cheryl Parr, had an ownership interest in the Wilson property and that the MOU should be set aside based on the parties’ mutual mistake that the property was community property subject to division. The district court ruled that the MOU was enforceable and denied Mark’s request to join Cheryl in the action. The court then entered the divorce decree adopting the parties’ MOU. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the MOU was enforceable with respect to the parties’ disposition of the Wilson property; and (2) the district court properly denied Mark’s request to join Cheryl in the action for the purpose of adjudicating any interest she may have in the property. View "Anderson v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Hawley McIntosh purchased a home located within a common-interest community. McIntosh’s first mortgage lender subsequently foreclosed on McIntosh’s home. Scott Ludwig purchased the property and subsequently transferred the property by quitclaim deed to Ikon Holdings, LLC. Ikon acknowledged that it acquired the property subject to the homeowner association’s (Horizons) superpriority lien but disagreed that the lien included nine months, rather than six months, of unpaid assessments or the collection fees and foreclosure costs Horizon was seeking to recoup. Thereafter, Ikon filed the underlying declaratory relief action. The district court granted partial declaratory relief, concluding that Horizons’ covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) limited its superpriority lien to an amount equal to six months of assessments, which did not offend Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116(2)’s superpriority provision providing for nine months of assessments. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a superpriority lien for common expense assessments pursuant to section 116.3116(2) does not include collection fees and foreclosure costs incurred by an HOA; and (2) an HOA’s CC&Rs that purport to create a superpriority lien covering certain fees and costs over six months preceding foreclosure are superseded by the terms of the superpriority lien created by section 116.3116(2). View "Horizons at Seven Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. Ikon Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a controlled substance. Defendant moved to declare a mistrial and order a new trial due to juror misconduct, arguing that there was a reasonable probability that the verdict was affected by independent experiments conducted by two jurors to test theories of the case advanced at trial. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial because the independent experiments conducted by the jurors constituted prejudicial misconduct; and (2) the district court committed plain error by failing to provide a jury instruction admonishing jurors against conducting independent research, investigations, and experiments. View "Bowman v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit grand larceny. While on probation, Appellant was charged with and pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Instead of imposing a sentence in that case, the court suspended the proceedings and placed Appellant on probation with special conditions. Appellant later admitted to violating the special conditions of her probation. The district court ultimately revoked Appellant’s probation in the conspiracy to commit grand larceny case and executed the original sentence of nine months with credit for time served. The district court then sentenced Appellant to twelve to thirty-two months’ imprisonment in the possession of a controlled substance case. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court plainly erred when it considered her status as a pregnant drug addict in deciding to impose a consecutive sentence in the controlled substance case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it considered Appellant’s status as a pregnant addict at the time of sentencing because Appellant raised the issue of her status as a pregnant addict at the sentencing hearing. View "Newman v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with felony eluding a police officer and misdemeanor reckless driving based on the same incident. Appellant pleaded no contest to misdemeanor reckless driving and then moved to dismiss the felony eluding a police officer charge on the basis of double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that misdemeanor reckless driving did not constitute a lesser included offense of felony eluding. Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to felony eluding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the offense of reckless driving is a lesser included offense of felony eluding as charged in this case, and therefore, Appellant’s conviction for felony eluding a police officer violated double jeopardy. View "Kelley v. State" on Justia Law

Ayden A., a sixteen-year-old minor, was admitted to West Hills Hospital because he was deemed to be emotional disturbed and a danger to himself. One week later, the State filed a petition for involuntary placement in a locked facility after emergency admission, arguing that its petition was timely because five days as prescribed in Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B.6075(2) means judicial days. The district court ruled in favor of Ayden, concluding that “five days” in the statute means calendar days. The State subsequently filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying the State’s petition to extend the placement, holding (1) although Ayden was released from involuntary placement and this matter is moot, this particular issue is presents an issue that is capable of repetition yet evading review and thus fits within an exception to the mootness doctrine; and (2) the five days in section 432B.6075 must be judicial days based on Nev. R. Civ. P. 6(a)’s instructions on computing time. View "State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of child abuse and first-degree kidnapping in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.310(1). Section 200.310(1) makes it a category A felony to lead, take, entice, or carry away or detain any minor “with the intent to keep,” imprison, or confine the minor from any person having lawful custody of the minor. Defendant appealed, arguing that the statute’s “intent to keep” language is ambiguous and that, under the proper interpretation of that requirement, there was insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping conviction. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s first-degree kidnapping conviction, holding (1) section 200.310(1)’s “intent to keep” language is ambiguous; (2) pursuant to the canons of statutory interpretation, section 200.310(1) requires an intent to keep the minor for a protracted period of time or permanently; and (3) under the proper legal standard, there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s kidnapping conviction. View "Schofield v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary while in possession of a firearm, conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, and murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State’s warrantless access of historical cell site location data obtained from his cell phone service provider pursuant to the Stored Communications Act violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell site location information data because it is a part of the business records made, kept, and owned by cell phone providers, and therefore, a search warrant is not required to obtain such historical cell site location information; (2) certain out-of-court and in-court identifications did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to due process of law; (3) prosecutorial conduct and statements during closing arguments did not violate Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; and (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law

This lawsuit arose after Diane Collins rear-ended Ja Cynta McClendon’s car. Collins designated Dr. Eugene Appel as a testifying medical expert and filed an expert witness report. Before McClendon was able to depose Appel, Collins de-designated him as a testifying expert witness. Collins moved for a protective order to prevent McClendon from deposing Appel or calling him to testify at trial. McClendon subsequently moved to designate Appel as her own expert witness. The district court granted Collins’ motion for a protective order and denied McClendon’s motion. The jury subsequently entered judgment in favor of Collins. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) after an expert report has been disclosed, a testifying expert witness cannot regain the confidentiality protections of Nev. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) by de-designating that witness to the status of a nontestifying expert; (2) after the expert witness has lost Rule 26(b)(4)(B)’s protections, the district court has the discretion whether to allow the witness to be further deposed or called to testify at trial by an opposing party; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by basing its decision on the fact that Appel had not yet been deposed, but the error was harmless. View "McClendon v. Collins" on Justia Law