5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Mass Land Acquisition, LLC v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. [State of Nevada], 85693 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Oct. 17, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court clarified that privately owned utility companies, like NV Energy, can legally use eminent domain to take private property if it’s for a legitimate public purpose, provided it meets statutory requirements. This ruling clarifies that Nevada law allows private companies to take land for public projects such as a natural gas pipeline even if the property goes from one private owner to another. Additionally, the court determined that a jury trial to decide what constitutes “public use” is only necessary if there are genuine factual disputes. Since no significant facts were in dispute in this case, NV Energy could proceed with its pipeline project on Mass Land’s property without a jury trial
Nevins v. Martyn, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Oct. 17, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court issued four pertinent rules. First, a court may not award attorney fees exceeding the limit outlined in NRS 7.095. Second, the 2015 amendments to NRS 41A.035(1) apply retroactively to cap a professional entity health care provider’s damages at the same level as its principal. Third, the 2015 amendments to NRS 41A.035(3), barring res ipsa loquitur instructions when a plaintiff uses an expert witness, do not apply retroactively. Fourth, NRCP 68(f)(1)(B) and NRS 18.005 may be applied concurrently to assess an attorney fee award
Griffith v. Rivera, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Sept. 19, 2024)
Get PDFIf an amendment that increases the amount of attorney fees a short trial judge may award goes into effect before trial, and the parties had reasonable notice of this change, the new rules will be applicable to the trial. This applies even if the request for trial was filed before the amendment was ordered, and litigation was still pending when the amendment took effect. This is because an increase in the amount of attorney fees that a short trial judge may award is not an alteration of a substantive right, but rather a procedural change to an already existing remedy
Nev. Policy Research Inst. v. Miller [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Oct. 31, 2024)
Get PDFThe Court ruled that dual employment involving state legislators and their employment by Nevada System of Higer Education (NSHE) or by local government does not violate the state’s constitutional separation of powers. The Court reasoned that NSHE is not part of the executive branch, and employment within NSHE does not constitute dual executive-legislative service. Similarly, employment within local government entities is distinct from the function of the executive branch—therefore allowing legislators to concurrently hold education and local government positions without infringing on separation of powers principles. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of claims that these dual roles breached constitutional mandates
Dawson (Clifton) v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nov. 21, 2024)
Get PDFAppellant Clifton Dawson sexually assaulted C.V. in 1997 but was only linked to the crime and sentenced in 2022. The district court adjudicated Dawson as a habitual criminal according to the relevant statute when he committed his offense in 1997, which requires three prior felony convictions. The Court reviewed Dawson’s challenges to his sentencing regarding the operative habitual criminal statute and the required number of prior felony convictions. The Court held that when adjudicating a defendant as a habitual criminal, the operative statute is the one that was in effect when the defendant committed his charged offense, not the one that was in effect during the defendant’s sentencing. Thus, the Court upheld the district court’s statute used during Dawson’s sentencing. The Court held that three required felony convictions must have predated the charged offense for a habitual criminal adjudication. The Court vacated Dawson’s sentencing because the State only proved that two, not three, of his felony convictions predated Dawson’s charged offense. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for a district court judge to hold a new sentencing hearing to determine if Dawson had three prior felony convictions
Hugo Sanchez v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 19, 2024)
Get PDFA factual innocence petition is dismissed without prejudice if it fails to meet the pleading requirements. A factual innocence petition that is dismissed without prejudice is not appealable because it fails to meet the pleading requirements. To meet its pleading requirements, the petition must contain a claim of factual innocence made by the petitioner and newly discovered evidence that establishes an issue of factual innocence. This evidence must be new, establish an issue of factual innocence when viewed with other evidence in the case, and cannot solely be based on a recantation of testimony by a witness
Table of Contents, Editorial Board, Law School Faculty and Administration, Advisory Board, Advisory Council, Sponsors
Get PDF
Tashami J. Sims v The State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (Dec. 07, 2023)
Get PDFA defendant can abandon an unequivocal request to represent themselves when the district court does not deny the request. A trial court conclusively denies a request for self-representation when it gives a reason for the denial that would make any future requests futile. The Court adopts the totality of the circumstances test to determine if a defendant has abandoned a request to represent themselves