5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Table of Contents, Editorial Board, Law School Faculty and Administration, Advisory Board, Advisory Council, Sponsors
Full text linkOrtiz (Ramel) vs. State [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 04, 2024)
Full text linkThis opinion regards Ramel Ortiz, who was convicted of sexual assault, after he broke into the victim’s home and forced them to engage in multiple sexual acts. Four of these sexual assault counts resulted from an incident where Ortiz subjected the victim to intercourse in different sexual positions. Nevada caselaw provides that a change in position alone is insufficient to show that the resulting sexual acts constitute more than one sexual assault offense. However, Ortiz’s counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the multiple sexual assault convictions. Further, Ortiz filed a postconviction writ of habeas corpus with respect to an ineffective-assistance claim. As a result, the Court reversed in part and remanded the lower court to vacate three of Ortiz’s sexual assault convictions
City of Las Vegas v. 180 Land Co., LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 18, 2024)
Full text linkThe Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the appeals by both parties in the instant matter. The City of Las Vegas (“the City”) challenged the district court’s finding that a taking occurred, the just compensation award, and the other monetary awards made to 180 Land Co., LLC (“180 Land”). 180 Land challenged the district court’s determination of prejudgment interest awarded to them. In its opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed whether the land R-PD7 residential zoning or its PR-OS land designation governed 180 Land’s ability to develop the property. The court reviewed the district court’s adoption of 180 Land’s expert witness’ determination valuation of the land’s highest and best use. Finally, the court reviewed the district court’s award of property taxes and attorney’s fees to 180 Land. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling that: (1) a taking occurred; (2) the district court was correct in its determination of the just compensation award; and (3) no error existed in the district court’s other awards
In Re: Application for Change of Name (Lowry), 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 6, 2024)
Full text linkAny incarcerated person can change their name, even if they were convicted of an offense that precludes their record from being sealed. The name change statute unambiguously accounts for an applicant’s criminal record. The criminal record follows them to their new name, so they cannot circumvent record-sealing requirements. The district court also reasoned that public policy precluded the petitioner from changing his name because he committed a sexual offense against a minor. The Court did not address the district court’s public policy findings
In the Matter of J.B v. Eighth Jud. Dist., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 12, 2024)
Full text linkThe Nevada Supreme Court clarified that blood relatives alone are not the only persons considered for child placement. In 2021, NRS 432B.0657 was introduced to expand statutory placement preference to include fictive kin, persons who are not related to the child by blood but have “a significant emotional and positive relationship with the child.” The Court explained that “fictive kin” requires evaluating the relationship from the perspective of both the child and the adult, emphasizing that blood relatives do not have legal placement preference over fictive kin.” Further, the Court stressed that “placement decisions must be based on a child’s best interest” and that the “child must be meaningfully represented in all stages of a placement proceeding.
Dicta Mines, Pretext, and Excessive Force: Toward Criminal Procedure Futurism
Full text linkScholars have recently criticized Fourth Amendment pretext doctrine for leading to more police contact with Black and Brown people and thus to racially disproportionate uses of excessive force. This Essay reveals the intersection of the Court’s pretext and excessive force doctrines by unearthing their shared roots in the 1973 United States v. Robinson search-incident-to-arrest opinion.
This Essay’s new insight is that Robinson contains what it calls a “dicta mine.” A dicta mine is (1) an unnecessary statement that (2) a Court silently recharacterizes as having already resolved an issue, (3) exploding it into a significant doctrine. The Robinson dicta mine claims, without support, that “it is of no moment that [officer] Jenks did not indicate any subjective fear of the Respondent or that he did not himself suspect that the Respondent was armed.” Citing Robinson’s dicta mine, the 1978 Scott v. United States opinion takes Robinson’s aside and explodes it into a general principle that courts may not review officers’ subjective motivations. The 1989 Graham opinion then cites Scott, at the place where it cites Robinson’s dicta mine, for the proposition the anti-subjectivity principle is required in excessive force doctrine. Finally, the 1996 Whren opinion argues that Robinson and Scott had already “foreclose[d]” the possibility that the
Fourth Amendment could consider police racial bias to be unreasonable. This Essay’s principal contribution to criminal procedure literature is being the first publication to demonstrate how excessive force and pretext doctrines are illegitimate because they rest upon the shaky foundation of Robinson’s dicta mine.
This Essay’s second contribution is its proposal that we should respond to the criminal procedure redemption—the systematic undoing of civil liberties, especially for racial minorities, that began in the early 1970s—by adopting a criminal procedure futurism perspective. The goals of this approach are to delegitimate anti-egalitarian doctrines in the present and create doctrinal principles for a second criminal procedure revolution in the future. To prepare for the future, law professors should discontinue teaching Robinson as a stand-alone search incident to arrest case. Instead, we should connect it to the excessive force and pretext doctrines as part of showing students how to read opinions with a critical eye
Saticoy Bay LLC Ser. 3580 Lost Hills vs. Foreclosure Recovery Ser., LLC [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Nov. 27, 2024)
Full text linkThe Court ruled that the beneficiary to a will who is devised real property may act as the testator’s successor in interest for purposes of Nevada’s redemption statute, NRS 116.31166 . In reaching this conclusion, the Court applied longstanding Nevada precedent and various canons of statutory interpretation to hold that the beneficiary is immediately vested with beneficial interest in the property at the time of the testator’s death. The Court clarified that this interest is distinct from title, and that there is no requirement that the will be probated prior to asserting this interest
Alvarez v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 19, 2024)
Full text linkIn Alvarez v. State, the court reaffirmed precedent from cases such as Jackson v. State, which established that a defendant cannot face multiple convictions for offenses that are considered mutually exclusive, when they arise under the same facts. In reversing Alvarez’s conviction for grand larceny, the court held that convicting him twice for the same incident violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, it upheld the trial court’s decision concerning the denial of a motion to suppress and prosecutorial misconduct during grand jury proceedings
Panik v. TMM, Inc., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Nov. 30, 2023)
Full text linkAnti-SLAPP statutes in Nevada follow a two-pronged analysis. The first prong asks whether the moving party has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims are based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. Similarly, the defendant must establish that the communication is truthful or was made without knowledge of its falsehood. The second prong asks whether the plaintiff has demonstrated with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on its claims. Anti-SLAPP statutes are not limited to specific kinds of claims for relief, but rather focus on the defendant’s actions and are available regardless of the relief the plaintiff seeks