5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Rodriguez (Isaac) v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (Jul. 03, 2024)
Full text linkThe rule of completeness is a rule of admission, not of exclusion. As such, a party\u27s failure to move for admission of additional statements under the rule of completeness does not render the initial statements inadmissible. Further, the prosecution may draw inferences from, and fully express its interpretation of, the evidence. Finally, courts may decline to consider arguments unsupported by cogent argument or authority
The Insufficiency of Battered Women’s Syndrome Evidence and the Need for Resentencing Legislation for Criminalized Survivors of Domestic Violence
Full text linkTraining Law Students to Model Civility When Social Media Makes Civility Harder to Maintain
Full text linkLitchfield v. Tucson Ridge HOA, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 5, 2024)
Full text linkThe Nevada Supreme Court considered the law-of-the-case doctrine, and how a predecessor judge’s decision regarding a legal issue will restrict a successor judge’s ability to rule on an identical issue within one case. In this case, Tucson Ridge Homeowners Association, Prime Community Management, LLC, and Level Property Management, LLC (“TRHOA”) moved for summary judgment asking the successor judge to reconsider a legal issue that was decided by a predecessor judge during a motion to dismiss. The Court disagreed with the successor judge that reconsidered a previously ruled on legal issue, because the law-of-the-case doctrine does not allow a successor judge to reconsider an identical legal issue within one case, unless an exception applies
Chasing Horse (Nathan) v. Dist. Ct. (State)., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 26, 2024)
Full text linkIt is an error of the State to give an instruction to the Grand Jury that is not supported by evidence and which does not address a necessary element, which in this case must be under NRS 172.095(2). The State exceeded its statutory duty in the case at hand and gave the grand jury an instruction on grooming that was improper and prejudicial. As a result, and because the State failed to provide exculpatory evidence, the district court abused its discretion in denying pretrial habeas corpus relief. The petitioned relief is affirmed
State v. Devries, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Dec. 26, 2024)
Full text linkThe respondents, members of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, were charged with various offenses related to the alleged ambush and shooting of rival Vagos Motorcycle Club members. The State appealed a district court decision that partially granted pretrial habeas corpus petitions and dismissed the criminal gang sentencing enhancement. The Nevada Supreme Court found this dismissal to be erroneous, concluding that the State provided sufficient evidence to support a probable cause finding that Hells Angels is a criminal gang under NRS 193.168. The Supreme Court reversed the district court\u27s decision and remanded the case
Henderson City Attorney v. Christopher Cerrone, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Oct. 24, 2024)
Full text linkThe respondent committed domestic violence resulting in him being charged with a misdemeanor, which was later changed to a misdemeanor battery. Cerrone attempted to get the updated charge thrown out. Cerrone claimed that the charge denied him a right to a jury trial. Cerrone appealed to the district court on a mandamus relief. It was then appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court argued that the District Court had erred in their decision and the municipal court had the right to have a bench trial due to the simple battery charge
A US Perspective on Copyright and Free Trade Agreements
Full text linkProfessor Trimble delivered a presentation for the 2024 International Congress of the International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), held in Santiago de Chile.
The topic of the Congress was Copyright, International Trade, and Cultural Diversity, and Professor Trimble presented about U.S. perspectives on copyright and free trade agreements
Doing Things with the Language of Law and Gender: Using Speech Act Theory to Understand the Meaning and Effect of the Gender Identity Backlash
Full text linkA significant legal backlash against transgender individuals is currently under way. This movement--which includes state legislation, state executive action, and federal cases--seeks to limit access and participation by transgender individuals in school sports, use of bathrooms, access to appropriate care, and even the right to be addressed appropriately in the classroom. Properly understood as a political backlash in response to previous political gains by transgender individuals, this movement is composed of a series of speech acts: language that makes change in the world and alters human relations. This article identifies the features of the backlash and the power dynamics that fuel it. Applying Speech Act Theory, the article undertakes a close examination of the language of the legislation and cases to reveal the many cloaked performative speech acts that animate the backlash. Understanding the way that the language of law and the language of gender operate to promote and normalize this backlash is a key first step to undermining the deleterious effects of these speech acts
Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 14, 2024)
Full text linkThe Supreme Court of Nevada consolidated appeals from a district court judgment pursuant to a jury verdict and orders awarding attorney fees and costs in a medical malpractice action. The lawsuit was on behalf of LaQuinta Whitley-Murray who passed away at Valley Health System operating as Centennial Hills Hospital Medical Center. Murray’s estate and heirs filed a negligence action and argued a breach of fiduciary duty. The district court upheld the jury’s award to Murray of $48 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The district court declined to apply NRS Chapter 41A’s statutory caps on damages in professional negligence actions. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Court also clarified that hospitals do not owe a fiduciary duty to their patients in connection with medical treatment. Accordingly, the Court vacated the compensatory damages and remanded to the district court to apply the damages cap to the noneconomic damages while also reducing the economic and noneconomic damages to the 65-percent pro rata share. The Court also vacated the prejudgment interest award and remanded so that the award is solely based on past damages and not future. Lastly, the Court decided that the attorney fees and costs and expert fees were within the district court’s discretion