Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal arose from a failed land sale contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and recession based on mutual mistake. Defendant counterclaimed for, inter alia, breach of contract, abuse of process, and nuisance. After a trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for Defendant on its nuisance and abuse of process counterclaims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its mutual mistake rescission claim, as a mutual mistake will not provide a ground for rescission where one of the parties bears the risk of mistake; (2) an abuse of process claim may not be supported by a complaint to an administrative agency instead of one involving a legal process, and therefore, Defendant failed to establish the elements of abuse of process; and (3) a nuisance claim seeking only emotional distress damages does not require proof of physical harm, and the facts in this case supported the damages award arising under Defendant’s nuisance counterclaim. View "Land Baron Invs., Inc. v. Bonnie Springs Family LP" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of entering a pawn shop with the intent to obtain money under false pretenses for selling stolen property through the retractable sliding tray of a pawn shop’s drive-through window. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction, holding that no reasonable person could conclude that the sliding tray fell within the outer boundary of the building that housed the pawn shop. Therefore, the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to demonstrate that Appellant committed an unlawful entry of the building, as defined in the burglary statutes. View "Merlino v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the district court’s termination of Father’s parental rights to his two minor children. Father appealed, arguing that the district court should not have terminated his parental rights because he completed his case plan and erred in applying the presumptions in Nev. Rev. Stat. 128.109(1)(a) and 128.109(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court may terminate the parental rights of a parent who has completed his or her case plan for reunification if termination is otherwise warranted under Nev. Rev. Stat. 128.105; (2) the district court is not required to wait the entire twenty months before applying the presumptions found in Nev. Rev. Stat. 128.109(1)(a) and 128.109(2), so long as the child has been removed from his parents’ home pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B for at least fourteen months during any consecutive twenty-month period; and (3) substantial evidence supported the district court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights. View "In re Parental Rights as to A.P.M." on Justia Law

Through the adoption of Nev. Rev. Stat. 630.356(2), the Legislature gave physicians the right to contest and the district courts the power to review final decisions of the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners. In this case, the Board suspended the license of Appellant, a surgeon licensed in Nevada, for rendering services to a patient while under the influence of alcohol and in an impaired condition. The Board also issued a public reprimand and imposed additional sanctions. Appellant petitioned for judicial review of the Board’s decision and requested a preliminary injunction to stay the sanctions and prevent the Board, while judicial review was pending, from filing a report with the National Practitioner Data Bank. The district court denied Appellant’s injunction request, concluding that section 630.356(2), which prohibits district courts from entering a stay of the Board’s decision pending judicial review, precluded such an action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 630.356(2) impermissibly acts as a legislative encroachment on the district court’s power to do what is reasonably necessary to administer justice, and this is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. View "Tate v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs" on Justia Law

Appellants brought this action against BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, asserting fraud and consumer fraud. The district court granted BAC’s motion to dismiss but allowed Appellants leave to file an amended complaint. Thereafter, Appellants filed a first amended complaint, again asserting fraud and consumer fraud. The district court dismissed the amended complaint, allowing Appellants leave to amend. Instead of filing a second amended complaint, however, Appellants appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the district court’s order granting BAC’s second motion to dismiss was not final and appealable because it allowed Appellants leave to amend. View "Bergenfield v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP" on Justia Law

Appellants’ vehicle was rear-ended by a semitrailer truck driven and owned by Respondents. Appellants sued, and the jury rendered a verdict in Respondents’ favor. The district court denied Appellants’ motion for a new trial and awarded Respondents attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict and the denial of Appellants’ motion for a new trial, holding that the district court properly instructed the jury on sudden emergencies; but (2) reversed the award of attorney fees based on the rejected offers of judgment, holding that this award was an abuse of discretion, and reversed the award of expert witness fees, as the district court provided only limited justification for its decision to awarded the expert witness fees in excess of Nev. Rev. Stat. 18.005(5)’s per-expert presumptive maximum. View "Frazier v. Drake" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. Defendant filed a timely post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because it was coerced and thus involuntary. The district court partially granted the petition, concluding that the actions of the Washoe County Department of Social Services (DSS) coerced Defendant into pleading no contest and that Defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in partially granting the petition. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to coercion and preventing or dissuading a person from testifying. Appellant requested the district court to defer sentencing and assign him to a treatment program for alcohol abuse under Nev. Rev. Stat. 458 rather than impose a term of incarceration. The district court determined that the acts underlying the crime involved domestic violence but concluded that Appellant was ineligible for a treatment program. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) erred by ruling that Appellant was not eligible for alcohol treatment under chapter 458 but did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s request for assignment to a treatment program, as sentencing is ultimately left to the sound discretion of the district court; and (2) did not commit prejudicial error in regard to the remaining issues raised appeal, with the exception of the sentence imposed on the conviction for preventing or dissuading a person from testifying, as the sentence was illegal. View "Cassinelli v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual assault. Before sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea, which allows a defendant who has pleaded guilty, but has not been sentenced, to petition to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion pursuant to Crawford v. State, concluding that Defendant’s plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Defendant appealed, arguing that Crawford’s exclusive focus on the validity of the plea lacks foundation in Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.165. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Crawford’s exclusive focus on the validity of the plea is not supported by section 176.165, and therefore, the district court may grant a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing for permitting withdrawal would be fair and just; but (2) Appellant failed to present a fair and just reason favoring withdrawal of his plea. View "Stevenson v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and abuse of process. After a second jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for damages on Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants appealed from the denial of a variety of motions and an award of costs and attorney fees to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the filing of a post-judgment motion that tolls the time to appeal also tolls Nev. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)’s twenty-day deadline to move for attorney fees; (2) the district court erred in finding that the $100,000 offset in Defendants’ favor from the first trial was extinguished by this Court’s previous order of reversal and remand; (3) the district court erred in finding that all Defendants, rather than just a real estate agency, were liable for attorney fees; and (4) the district court’s judgment is otherwise affirmed. View "Barbara Ann Hollier Trust v. Shack" on Justia Law