Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent, Reno Newspapers Inc., submitted a public records request to Appellant, Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), seeking information stored in the individual files of retired employees. PERS denied Respondent's request, asserting that the information was confidential pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 286.110(3), which provides that the files of individual retired employees are not public records. Respondent filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the requested information. The district court granted the petition, concluding that the requested information was not confidential and that privacy concerns did not clearly outweigh the public's right to disclosure. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed in part, holding that the district court did not err in ordering PERS to provide the requested information to the extent it was maintained in a medium separate from individuals' files, as other reports generated by PERS were not protected by section 286.110(3); but (2) vacated the district court's order to the extent the court ordered PERS to create new documents or customized reports by searching for and compiling information from individuals' files, as the individual files had been declared confidential by statute and were thereby exempt from requests pursuant to the Act.View "Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nev. v. Reno Newspapers, Inc." on Justia Law

Palms Casino Resort allowed promotional actors to toss souvenirs into a crowd of patrons watching televised sporting events at the casino’s sports bar. Respondent was injured when another patron dove for a souvenir during a broadcast of Monday Night Football at the casino. Respondent sued Palms on a theory of negligence. After a trial, the district court determined that Palms was liable as a matter of law and awarded Respondent $6,051,589 in damages. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony of an expert on security and crowd control, and the error was not harmless. View "FCH1, LLC v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts relating to fraudulent use of a credit card. Before sentencing, Petitioners (collectively, the surety) posted a bond for Defendant’s release. Defendant subsequently traveled to Mexico but was denied admission when he tried to return to the United States. Defendant missed his sentencing, and the district court sent a notice of intent to forfeit bond to the surety. The surety filed a motion to exonerate the bond, but the district court denied the motion. The surety then filed a petition for extraordinary relief from the district court’s order. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) Defendant was excluded, not deported, and therefore, Nev. Rev. Stat. 178.509 did not allow the district court to exonerate the surety’s bail bond; and (2) the surety was not entitled to exoneration based on common law contract defenses because there was no statutory ground for exoneration. View "All Star Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Raymond Yeghiazarian died from injuries after colliding with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) Officer Jared Wicks. Raymond's wife and her son and two daughters (collectively, the Yeghiazarian family) filed a complaint against LVMPD and Officer Wicks, alleging negligence resulting in Raymond's death. After a trial, the jury found Officer Wicks was seventy-five percent negligent and Raymond was twenty-five percent negligent. The district court subsequently issued a judgment against LVMPD for $250,000 and awarded the Yeghiazarian family attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of Raymond's alcohol consumption prior to the accident; (2) did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Yeghiazarian family's expert to testify; (3) correctly calculated damages; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. View "Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Yeghiazarian" on Justia Law

Real parties in interest in this case were the owners and developers (collectively, P&R) and the general contractor (PCS) of a construction site in Las Vegas. Petitioner, an architecture firm, designed a housing project at the site. After a fatal automobile accident occurred at the site, Plaintiffs and/or their estates filed complaints against P&R, PCS, and Petitioner. Petitioner and Plaintiffs settled, and the district court determined the settlement was made in good faith. P&R subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Petitioner for breach of contract, professional negligence, and express indemnity, among other claims. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they were barred as "de facto" contribution and/or equitable indemnity claims. The district court granted the motion in part and dismissed P&R's claim for professional negligence. Petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the district court to dismiss P&R's remaining third-party claims against Petitioner, holding (1) Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.245(1)(b) bars all claims that seek contribution and/or equitable indemnity when the settlement is determined to be in good faith; and (2) P&R's remaining third-party claims here were "de facto" contribution claims and were thus barred by section 17.245(1)(b). View "Otak Nev., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In post-judgment proceedings, a judgment creditor garnished the funds in bank accounts held by the judgment debtor jointly with the debtor's nondebtor children. The children petitioned for relief, claiming that the garnished funds belonged to them alone. The district court summarily denied the children's petition and claims, concluding that the claims were not properly made and were untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a judgment creditor may garnish only a debtor's funds that are held in a joint bank account, not the funds in the account owned solely by the nondebtor; and (2) because the children's claims to the funds were timely and properly made, the district court erred in dismissing their petition without a hearing. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the garnished funds actually belonged, and thus must be returned, to the nondebtor children.View "Brooksby v. Nev. State Bank" on Justia Law

Steve Jacobs filed a wrongful termination complaint against Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) and Sands China Ltd. after he was fired as chief executive officer of the Sands China unit. Jacobs made several allegations in the complaint against Sheldon Adelson, the chief executive officer and majority shareholder of LVSC, personally. The case received widespread media attention, and after the Wall Street Journal published Adelson’s response to the allegations, Jacobs amended his complaint to add a claim for defamation per se against Adelson. The district court dismissed the defamation claim, determining that Adelson’s statements to the media were absolutely privileged communications relating to litigation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that communications made to the media in an extrajudicial setting are not absolutely privileged when the media holds no more significant interest in the litigation than the general public. View "Jacobs v. Adelson" on Justia Law

Corporation obtained a loan from Lenders to help pay for real property that was secured by a deed of trust on the property. Appellant, the principal and sole owner of Corporation, signed a personal guaranty of the loan, which included a waiver of his right to receive notice of any default on the loan. Corporation defaulted on the loan, and Lender purchased the property at a trustee’s sale. Lender then filed a complaint seeking a deficiency judgment from Appellant as guarantor. The district court awarded a deficiency judgment in favor of Lender, concluding (1) Appellant’s waiver of his right to receive a notice of default was invalid pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.453; but (2) Lender substantially complied with Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.095’s notice requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Legislature intended for section 40.453 to invalidate a guarantor’s purported waiver of the right to be mailed a notice of default; and (2) substantial compliance can satisfy section 107.095’s notice requirements. View "Schleining v. Cap One, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners were two German limited liability corporations who were sued by a homeowners association for alleged construction defects in plumbing parts. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they had no direct connection to Nevada, did not manufacture or distribute the allegedly faulty plumbing parts, and had no responsibility or control over their American subsidiaries such that the subsidiaries’ contacts with Nevada could be imputed to Petitioners. The district court asserted jurisdiction over Petitioners, determining that the companies’ American subsidiaries acted as Petitioners’ agents and concluding that the subsidiaries’ contacts with Nevada could be imputed to Petitioners. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of prohibition challenging the validity of the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them. The district court granted the petition, holding that no agency relationship was shown in this case, and accordingly, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in imputing the subsidiaries’ contacts to Petitioners. View "Viega GmbH v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner personally guaranteed a commercial real estate loan that Bank purchased. The borrowers defaulted on the loan, and Bank sought recovery of the loan’s balance from Petitioner. While the case against Petitioner was pending, Bank foreclosed and took ownership of the property securing the underlying loan at a trustee’s sale. Bank subsequently moved for summary judgment regarding Petitioner’s liability for his breach of the loan guaranty. Petitioner also moved for summary judgment, arguing that Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455 precluded Bank from obtaining a judgment for the deficiency on the loan balance after the trustee’s sale. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to dismiss the guaranty action against Petitioner, concluding that Bank was barred from recovery under the guaranty because it failed to apply for a deficiency judgment under section 40.455 within six months after the property’s sale. The Supreme Court denied Bank's petition for rehearing because it considered and resolved Bank’s arguments in its order granting mandamus relief and did not misread or misapply the pertinent law. View "Lavi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law