5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Reggio v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (Mar. 9, 2023)
Get PDFWhere the first party of a consolidated case waives their right to a peremptory challenge under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 48.1(5), the waiver applies to subsequent parties on the same side of the consolidation. While parties are still entitled to an additional peremptory challenge when their case is reassigned under SCR 48.1(9), this is only permitted when the first case is reassigned, not the second
Vernon Newson, Jr., v. The State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Mar. 30, 2023)
Get PDFTo determine whether remote testimony by way of video-conferencing satisfies a defendant\u27s constitutional right to confrontation, a district court must find that (1) permitting a witness to testify remotely is necessary to further a compelling public policy interest, and (2) the testimony is otherwise reliable. In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that although efforts to curtail the spread of the COVID-19 virus may constitute a compelling public policy interest, a district court must make specific findings as to why permitting a particular witness to testify remotely furthers this interest. Here, the district court erred in not requiring such findings of necessity before allowing two witnesses to testify remotely at appellant’s murder trial. However, because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment of conviction was affirmed
Table of Contents, Editorial Board, Law School Faculty and Administration, Advisory Board, Advisory Council, Sponsors
Get PDFWishengrad v. Carrington Mortg. Servs. [State of Nevada], 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (May 18, 2023)
Get PDFNRS 104.3104 provides that certain documents may constitute “negotiable instruments” for the purpose of enforcing a promise to pay. Under NRS 104.3104(1), a home equity line of credit agreement (HELOC) may be classified as a negotiable instrument if it has a defined maturity date and closed draw period. The same HELOC may also be classified as a “promissory note” under NRS 104.3104(5). When the borrowers fail to repay funds provided to them under the terms of an HELOC, the loan servicer and trustee are entitled to foreclose upon the borrowers’ home. Finally, even if a borrower’s property is held in the name of a trust, the property is considered “owner-occupied” when the borrower-trustee is the owner of the home and occupies the home as their primary residence
Igtiben v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Rep. 9 (Feb. 22, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Court of Appeals held that the district court failed to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for professional negligence and wrongful death because the claims were untimely under NRS 41A.097(2) since they were filed two years and ten months from date on which real party in interest received the relevant medical records. The Court highlighted the lack of dispute surrounding the receipt of the medical records—noting that an only an impediment such as concealment of records would prevent inquiry notice tolling to begin, which was not the case here. The Court noted that receipt of all relevant records will constitute inquiry notice unless an impediment existed that prevented the Plaintiff from commencing an action, such as concealment of medical records
“Cops or Coaches?” The Statutory Role of Juvenile Probation Officers in a Transformative Age
Get PDFFor more than a century, juvenile justice proponents have had a difficult time precisely defining the proper role of the juvenile probation officer while simultaneously stressing that the juvenile probation department is the “workhorse” of the entire system. Existing literature largely focuses on which aspects of policing and social work these officers should embody while ignoring the foundational moorings in state statutes. This Article offers both a historical account of the rise of the juvenile probation officer and a thorough analysis of each state’s laws regarding peace officer status, employing authority, the power of arrest, and the power to carry firearms on duty. In this transformative time for the juvenile justice system, reformers must contemplate the proper role of statutory authority in realigning the scope of juvenile probation officers and their duties
State Department of Public and Behavioral Health v. Eighth Judicial Court, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (Aug. 31, 2023)
Get PDFUnder NRS 22.030, for a district court to have jurisdiction to hold a party in indirect contempt, they must file either an affidavit or an unsworn declaration of truth to the district court judge.
A court does not manifestly abuse its discretion by making decisions based on undisputed facts, not having an evidentiary hearing, or using a party’s history to justify imposing deadlines and sanctions on a party
El Jen Med. Hosp. v. Tyler, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (Sept. 21, 2023)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court compelling an estate\u27s claims to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed during the decedent\u27s admission to El Jen Convalescent Hospital and Retirement Center (El Jen). The Court held that the statutory heirs wrongful death claim is not bound to the arbitration agreement, which they did not sign, and declined to compel arbitration of their claims
Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (Sept. 28, 2023)
Get PDFIn an en banc decision, the Nevada Supreme Court considered an issue of first impression regarding NRS 357.080(3)(b).2 Specifically, the court addressed whether NRS 357.080(3)(b) requires dismissal of a private action brought on behalf of the State under the Nevada False Claims Act (“NFCA”), where a political subdivision, such as a county, brings a subsequent civil suit on its own behalf against the same parties based on the same allegations or transactions in the private action. As a matter of first impression, the court utilized statutory interpretation to determine the Nevada Legislature’s intent behind NFCA language that differed from its federal counterpart. The court held that NRS 357.080(3)(b) does not contain a sequencing requirement, as its federal counterpart does, and, thus, applies to any such private action, even if initiated prior to the civil suit’s commencement. However, if the private action is filed on behalf of a different governmental entity than the civil action that involves the same defendant party and these same allegations or transactions, then the private action’s dismissal is not required pursuant to NRS 357.080(3)(b)