Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, receiving or possessing stolen goods, and carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant moved to suppress the handgun evidence and to dismiss the charges, arguing that his detention after a law enforcement officer confirmed that he was not in violation of curfew was unconstitutional and, therefore, the encounter evolved into an illegal seizure that resulted in the discovery of the firearm. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer’s continued detention of Defendant, after he dispelled any suspicion that Defendant was committing a crime, constituted an illegal seizure and should have been suppressed because no intervening circumstance purged the taint of the illegal seizure. View "Torres v. State" on Justia Law

Patients of certain healthcare facilities were advised to testify for blood-borne diseases after it was discovered that those healthcare facilities used unsafe injection practices during certain procedures. Plaintiffs, patients of those facilities who had undergone such procedures, filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated individuals against PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc., a health maintenance organization, asserting negligence on the ground that PacifiCare failed to establish and implement a quality assurance program to oversee the medical providers within its network. The district court granted PacifiCare’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a negligence claim because they had not alleged an “actual injury,” such as testing positive for a blood-borne illness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs’ complaint adequately alleged an injury in the form of exposure to unsafe injection practices that caused a need for ongoing medical monitoring to detect latent diseases that may result from those unsafe practices. View "Sadler v. PacifiCare of Nev., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate at Lovelock Correctional Center, filed a petition seeking mandamus and injunctive relief to compel Respondent, Nevada’s Chief Medical Officer, to comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. 209.382(1)(b) by examining the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets and making the required semiannual reports to the Board of State Prison Commissioners regarding her findings. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent failed to fulfill the duties imposed on her by section 209.382(1)(b). Remanded to the district court with instructions to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent to comply with the requirements of section 209.382(1)(b) in accordance with this opinion. View "Stockmeier v. Green" on Justia Law

In May 2014, the City of Reno decided to lay off thirty-two firefighters. The City stated that its decision was based on a lack of funds. A collective bargaining agreement between the City and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 731 (union) provides that the right to lay off employees due to lack of funds is reserved to the City without negotiation. The union and the firefighters who would be laid off (collectively, IAFF) filed a complaint in the district court, claiming that the City had the funds to continue the firefighters’ employment. The IAFF also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The City filed a motion to dismiss due to the IAFF’s failure to exhaust contractual and administrative remedies. The district court proceeded to enjoin the City from proceeding with the layoffs while the IAFF exhausted its contractual grievance and administrative remedies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the underlying grievance was not arbitrable under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to rule on the request for injunctive relief. View "City of Reno v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 731" on Justia Law

Electrical problems at a plastic bag manufacturing plant led to an increased number of defective bags being produced. A dispute arose between the manufacturer and its insurer regarding what provision of the policy covered the losses associated with the defective bags and regarding what policy limit should apply to the manufacturer’s property loss. The district court submitted both issues to the jury. The jury awarded the manufacturer damages for breach of the insurance contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in sending the two questions to the jury because (1) categorizing the insured’s loss under the policy is a question of law and not a question of fact, and (2) determining which policy limit applies presents a question of law. Remanded. View "Fed. Ins. Co. v. Coast Converters, Inc." on Justia Law

Gordon and Carol Lane took out a loan secured by a piece of commercial real estate. John Serpa executed a personal guaranty upon the loan. The Lanes defaulted on their obligation, and Serpa failed to fulfill his guarantor duties. Before the original lender exercised its right to foreclose, the FDIC was appointed its receiver and assigned the interest in the Lanes’ loan to First Financial Bank, N.A. (FFB). FFB foreclosed and sold the property to itself. FFB then brought a deficiency judgment and breach of guaranty action against the Lanes and Serpa (collectively, Respondents). The district court entered judgment in Respondents’ favor under Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.451 because the fair market value of the property exceeded the consideration the FFB paid the FDIC to acquire a lien on the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the definition of “indebtedness” found in section 40.451 does not limit the amount a successor lienholder can recover in an action for a deficiency judgment to the amount of consideration such a lienholder paid to obtain its interest in the note and deed of trust. Remanded. View "First Fin. Bank v. Lane" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant’s theory of defense was that another man, Robert Belsey, killed the victim. In furtherance of his theories, Defendant designated an expert to testify on police interrogation techniques to establish that Defendant falsely incriminated himself. Defendant also sought to introduce evidence of two incidents of domestic violence in which Belsey had previously been involved. The district court excluded the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed with the exception of a correction ordered with respect to the appropriate restitution, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence; and (2) two unobjected-to comments by the district judge that Defendant asserted improperly vouched for a police officer’s credibility and disparaged the defense did not amount to plain error. View "Brant v. State" on Justia Law

Elsinore, LLC purchased a property located within the Peccole Ranch planned community that was subject to a lien for unpaid community-association assessments. Elsinore paid the outstanding association dues and then sold the property. Thereafter, Elsionre filed a complaint against Peccole Ranch with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) on behalf of itself and a class of property owners. Peccole Ranch then filed a district court action against Elsinore. Elsinore counterclaimed for declaratory relief and damages on bhealf of itself and the identified class. Peccole Ranch filed a third-party complaint against Nevada Association Services (NAS), one of its agents, seeking indemnification and contribution for any damages that Elsinore and the class recovered from Peccole Ranch. NAS and Peccole Ranch moved for summary judgment against Elsinore's counterclaims for damages on the basis that the voluntary payment doctrine barred Elsinore’s and the class members’ claims. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, holding that the voluntary payment doctrine was a complete defense to Elsinore’s claims, and therefore, the district court erred by denying NAS and Peccole Ranch’s motion for summary judgment. View "Nev. Ass'n Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct." on Justia Law

The purchasers of condominiums at a Las Vegas resort filed suit against approximately forty defendants, including JDI Loans, LLC and JDI Realty, LLC (collectively, the JDI entities), alleging that the resort’s marketing material represented that it was in a partnership with the JDI entities, that several defendants engaged in actionable wrongdoings, and that the JDI entities were liable for these actionable wrongdoings under Nev. Rev. Stat. 87.160(1), which codifies the partnership-by-estoppel doctrine. The district court granted summary judgment for the JDI entities as to their liability under section 87.160(1), concluding that a “reference to a ‘strategic partner’” in the marketing materials was insufficient to establish partnership by estoppel. The Supreme Court reversed after clarifying the partnership-by-estoppel doctrine, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment to the JDI entities with regard to their liability under Nev. Rev. Stat. 87.160(1). View "In re Cay Clubs" on Justia Law

NV Energy owns and operates electricity-generating plants in Nevada. NV Energy fueled two of those plants with coal obtained from mines outside Nevada and paid a use tax for its coal consumption pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 372.185. NV Energy petitioned the State Department of Taxation for a refund for the use taxes it paid on coal purchased over a four-year period, arguing that the Nev. Rev. Stat. 372.270 exemption from the use tax for locally produced mine and mineral proceeds discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court concluded that the exemption violated the Commerce Clause and struck the statute in its entirety but refused to award NV Energy any refund. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 372.270 is not severable; and (2) because NV Energy did not have any competitors who received the tax benefit, the tax scheme did not actually discriminate against interstate commerce, and therefore, NV Energy was not entitled to a refund. View "Sierra Pac. Power Co. v. State, Dep’t of Taxation" on Justia Law