5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Martinez v. Martinez, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Nov. 27, 2024)
Get PDFIn an en banc decision, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed a portion of a district court’s order imposing transportation costs separately from base child support obligations and remanded the matter for further proceedings. While the Nevada Administrative Code provides a formula for determining a parent’s base child support obligation, courts may adjust it in accordance with the eight factors listed under NAC 425.150. Pursuant to NAC 425.150(1)(e), one factor is “the cost of transportation of the child to and from visitation,” thereby establishing that such costs are an integral consideration to overall child support obligations. Per the remainder of the order, the Court perceived no error and affirmed
Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada v. Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association; and Las Vegas Peace Officers Association, 140 Nev. Advance Opinion 80. (Dec. 19, 2024)
Get PDFThe Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS) is a tax-qualified defined benefit plan established by the Legislature as an independent public agency. Its purpose is to provide a stable base income for eligible public employees who, due to age or disability, have experienced a complete or significant reduction in their earning capacity. Nevada observes Holidays some of which are not observed universally across the United States. PERS is statutorily required to collect the increased retirement contribution rates on holiday pay for the additional holidays. In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed whether the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) must collect retirement contributions for additional holidays negotiated in collective bargaining agreements, such as Christmas Eve, New Year’s Eve, and Juneteenth. The Court affirmed that PERS is obligated under NRS 286.025 to secure contributions for negotiated holidays, regardless of whether they are classified as “legal holidays” under Nevada statutes, which reinforces the statutory authority granted to employee associations for collective bargaining under NRS 288.150(2)(d) while clarifying PERS’s administrative responsibilities
Dignity Health v. Dist. Ct. (Gohari) [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (June. 20, 2024)
Get PDFPursuant to NRS 41A.097(5) a parent or guardian can file a claim for a child’s brain damage or birth defect until the child’s 10th birthday. In some cases, emergency directives issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, tolled those limitations period beyond a child’s 10th birthday. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the respondent’s complaint, which was filed 72 days after Gohari’s 10th birthday was timely. The court rejected the petitioners\u27 argument that the directives\u27 tolling provision did not apply, affirming the district court\u27s interpretation
In Re: Parametric Sound Corp. Shareholders’ Litigation, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (Jun. 6, 2024)
Get PDFThe Court finds that PAMTP’s claims are not direct because stock dilution is exclusively derivative and their control was not shifted from a group of investors to a single controlling stockholder and PAMTP consists only of former stockholders so they cannot bring derivative claims. Thus, the Court affirms the district court granting judgment pursuant to NRCP 52(c). Next, the Court finds it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to award pre-litigation costs because PAMTP intended to forgo benefits of the settlement. Finally, the Court reverses the Court reverses the district court’s order denying respondents’ request for attorney fees and remand to the district court to determine the amount that should be awarded. The Court found that the district court erroneously shifted the burden to the respondents and considered PAMTP’s costs when they were not at issue
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sparks v. Nevada Labor Commissioner, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 27, 2024)
Get PDFConsidering the language of NRS §279.500(2)(c), the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether non-cash consideration, rather than money up front, created a financial incentive that would require the payment of prevailing wages on a development project. In this case, the City of Sparks and the Sparks Redevelopment Agency (“RDA”) conveyed property to a developer in exchange for the maintenance of public parking on the property for fifty years. The Court stated that this future compensation did not create a financial incentive, and therefore, NRS 279.500(2)(c) was not invoked. Subsequently, the developer was not required to pay prevailing wages on the project
Hayes v. Watson, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (Aug. 9, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Court of Appeals found a jury verdict problematic in a medical malpractice case when the trial court incorrectly restricted the use of videotaped deposition testimony, violated the collateral source rule, and allowed testimony beyond the permitted scope. The issue in this case was whether Dr. Watson’s actions during an operation met the standard of care for medical professionals. However, the central issue in this case was whether multiple trial errors led to an improper verdict in favor of Dr. Watson. In reversing and remanding the case, the Nevada Court of Appeals held that a combination of errors during trial could have prejudiced the plaintiff and necessitated reconsideration
Pinney Jr. (Kenneth) v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 21, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial for appellant Kenneth Ray Joseph Pinney, Jr. The Court concluded that the district court erred in applying the incorrect test to exclude evidence of the victim Jorge Ramirez-More’s prior violent acts, and such an error was not harmless. In Burgeon v. State, the Court held that a victim’s prior acts are admissible as evidence if the defendant raises a self-defense claim and had knowledge of such acts. Here, the State argued that Tinch v. State altered the Burgeon holding. However, the Court disagreed and reasoned that Tinch instead clarified the test for admitting prior uncharged bad acts pursuant to NRS 48.045(2). The Court concluded that Burgeon remains the proper standard for evaluating the defendant’s request to admit evidence of the victim’s previous acts of violence in self-defense claims. Because the district court failed to apply the Burgeon test when evaluating Pinney’s request to admit evidence of the victim’s prior violent acts, the court abused its discretion
Malco Enter. of NV, Inc. v. Woldeyohannes, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Dec. 5, 2024)
Get PDFUnder NRS 482.305, short-term lessors of motor-vehicles who fail to provide lessees with minimum insurance coverage are held jointly and severally liable. By contrast, the Graves Amendment, a federal statute, bars states from holding lessors vicariously liable absent a showing of negligence. Respondent, Alelign Woldeyohannes, was rearended by Daniel Moore, who was intoxicated while driving a rental car. Alelign sued both Daniel for damages and the owner of the rental car company, Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc., for negligent entrustment. Following a default judgment against Daniel and a subsequent request for a de novo trial, the short trial judge entered a default judgment against both Daniel and Malco. The district court agreed and entered a final judgment consistent with the short trial judge. Appellant appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the district court’s interpretation of federal preemption. The Justices unanimously upheld the district court’s judgment because case precedent supports the court’s interpretation and NRS 482.305 is preserved under the savings clause
Clark County Department of Family Services v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Dec. 5, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court exceeded its statutory authority by ordering the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) to pay rental assistance to a foster parent. The Court ruled that NRS Chapter 432B does not grant courts the power to mandate how DFS allocates its budget. It further determined that DFS has broad discretion to manage its funds without restriction, as delegated by the Nevada Legislature, and that the district court’s interference was arbitrary and capricious. The Court granted DFS’s petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its order
Abbott v. City of Henderson, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jan. 25, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court was asked to decide whether: (1) the district court properly concluded that Vivaldi Park is covered by Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 41.510; (2) Abbott’s activities qualified as recreational activities; and (3) that Henderson did not intentionally create a hazard constituting willful conduct.
Under NRS 41.510, there are no land-type limitations on the properties protected from liability, and playground activities qualify as recreational activity under the statute. Furthermore, landowners can only be held liable for injuries caused on the landowner’s property if the landowner acted willfully and maliciously by not alerting the recreational user of a hazard on the property