Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants filed this personal injury action against Jane Liles and her daughter, Susan Liles, for damages arising from a car accident in Nevada. Both Jane and Susan were California residents. At issue in this case was whether Jane, a nonresident defendant, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada. The district court granted Jane’s motion to dismiss the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Jane was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada by virtue of (i) Susan’s unilateral use in Nevada of the vehicle involved in the car accident, (ii) the accident arising from Susan’s use of the vehicle, or (iii) Jane's motion to consolidate in a Nevada court the several cases stemming from the accident; but (2) Jane might be subject to jurisdiction in Nevada based on an interpleader action filed in Nevada by Jane’s insurance company. Remanded.View "Dogra v. Liles" on Justia Law

David and Kelli Nilsson, who were divorced, held a half interest in certain property in Reno as tenants in common. After the divorce, Kelli and the parties’ children lived on the property, and David lived elsewhere. Several years later, David filed for bankruptcy. On his schedule of real property assets, David claimed an interest in the Reno property as half-owner with Kelli. David then claimed the property as exempt from inclusion in his bankruptcy estate based in part on the homestead exemption. The bankruptcy trustee (Trustee) objected to the claimed exemption because David did not reside on the Reno property, David did not record a declaration of homestead, and David could not now record a valid declaration of homestead on the property. David responded that he could claim the exemption because his children still lived on the property. The bankruptcy court certified a question to the Nevada Supreme Court without ruling on the Trustee’s objection. The Court answered that a debtor must actually reside on real property in order to claim properly a homestead exemption for that property. View "In re Nilsson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with sexual assault and possession of child pornography. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence found on his computer pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant did not comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.045(5)’s requirement that a warrant include a statement of probable cause or have the affidavit supporting the warrant attached. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Allen, failure to comply with section 179.045(5) triggers exclusion despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary holding in United States v. Grubbs; and (2) in this case, the search warrant’s failure to comply with section 179.045(5) mandated exclusion of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.View "State v. Kincade" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted on several charges, including burglary, grand larceny, and obtaining property under false pretenses. After his appeal, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his judgment of conviction and sentence. Based on motions filed by Petitioner, including a motion for the appointment of post-conviction counsel, the district court entered an order designating Petitioner as a vexatious litigant and restricting his ability to file further documents in the district court. Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in designating Petitioner a vexatious litigant and entering the restrictive order. View "Jones v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was trust property that was transferred from the trust to a limited partnership by consent of the trust beneficiaries. The partnership subsequently transferred the property to a third-party business. The district court (1) imposed a constructive trust on the previous trust property based on the alleged improper transfer made by the partnership to the third party, and (2) entered a personal monetary judgment against the former trustee and the third party holding the former trust assets. At issue on appeal and cross-appeal was whether the in rem jurisdiction over the trust assets conferred upon the district court by Nev. Rev. Stat. 164.010(1) and 164.015(6) permitted the district court to impose the constructive trust and to enter the personal monetary judgment against the former trustee and third-party company. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 164.010(1) and 164.015(6) did not confer jurisdiction upon the district court to enter a constructive trust on the disputed assets and a personal monetary judgment against the former trustee and third-party company because in rem jurisdiction only extends to property, and the disputed assets were no longer trust property after they were transferred to the limited partnership. Remanded.View "In re Aboud Inter Vivos Trust" on Justia Law

Appellants, two taxicab drivers, brought an action against Respondents, taxicab companies, claiming damages for unpaid wages pursuant to the Minimum Wage Amendment, a constitutional amendment that revised Nevada’s then-statutory minimum wage scheme. The district court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not repeal Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.250, which excepts taxicab drivers from Nevada’s minimum wage provisions, and that the statutory exceptions could be harmonized with the constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Minimum Wage Amendment, by clearly setting out some exceptions to the minimum wage law and not others, supersedes and supplants the taxicab driver exception set out in section 608.250(2). View "Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp." on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in Nevada pursuant to a decree that granted Mother custody of the parents’ two children and ordered Father to pay Mother child support. Father later relocated to Hawaii and ceased making child support payments. Thereafter, the Hawaii court issued an administrative order that continued the Nevada child support order. The Hawaii court later entered an order reducing Father’s child support obligation. After the children reached the age of majority, Mother filed a motion requesting the Nevada district court to determine that the Nevada child support order was controlling and for a judgment of arrears. The Nevada court concluded that it had lost jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act applies retroactively; and (2) Nevada had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over this child support matter under the Act because Mother and the children continuously resided in Nevada and the parents did not consent to the assumption of jurisdiction over and modification of the order by the Hawaii court. View "Holdaway-Foster v. Brunell" on Justia Law

Catherine Doan and Craig Doan divorced in 2003. The divorce decree did not include Craig’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) retirement benefit despite the fact that the retirement benefit was disclosed and discussed during the divorce proceedings. In 2009, Catherine filed a motion for division of an omitted asset after her attorney discovered that she was not receiving Craig’s FAA retirement benefits. The district court modified the final decree of divorce, concluding that Craig’s retirement benefits were omitted from the divorce decree because of a mutual mistake. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an ex-spouse who does not file a motion for relief from a divorce decree within the six month period under Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not entitled to partition absent exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief; and (2) under the facts of this case, Catherine was not entitled to equitable relief because the retirement benefit was adjudicated in the divorce proceedings. View "Doan v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were unmarried parents of one child. Father established himself as the child’s father with to a written acknowledgment of paternity. After Mother relocated with the child to California without Father’s consent or knowledge, Father filed a motion for the child’s return and for an award of primary custody. The district court awarded Mother primary physical custody of the child and allowed the child to remain with her in California. In making its determination, the court concluded that because the couple did not have a judicial child custody order, Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.200, the statute governing relocation by an established custodial parent, was inapplicable in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) unmarried parents have equal custody rights regarding their child absent a judicial custody order to the contrary; (2) the district court did not err in finding section 125C.200 was inapplicable in this case; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody and approving her relocation with the child to California based on its determination that Mother had a “good faith” reason for the move and that living with Mother in California was in the child’s best interest. View "Druckman v. Ruscitti" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder, based on both premeditated and felony murder, and two counts of sexual assault. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court committed clear error by overruling his Batson objection and allowing the State to exercise peremptory challenges against several minority prospective jurors because the State’s explanations for striking the venirepersons were pretext for racial discrimination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court clearly erred by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge to dismiss an African-American prospective juror, as it was more likely than not that the State struck the prospective juror because of race. View "Conner v. State" on Justia Law