5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Eivazi v. Eivazi, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Oct. 05, 2023)
Get PDFFollowing lengthy and highly contested divorce proceedings, the Nevada Court of Appeals reviews a district court’s alimony determinations, attorney fee awards, and disposition of community property for an abuse of discretion. The district court adopted Respondent’s order in its entirety without modification, and the Nevada Court of Appeals determined whether this constitutes an abuse of discretion in and of itself. The Nevada Court of Appeals held that utilizing a party’s proposed order does not in and of itself constitute an abuse of discretion, but that courts who adopted litigant-drafted orders assume the risk that any legal or factual errors contained in the order might be reversible. The Court went on to urge courts and practitioners to diligently exercise their discretion and thoroughly review litigant-drafted orders before adopting them
Matkulak v. Davis, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Sept. 01, 2022)
Get PDFDeviations from the Nevada Administration Code’s framework for calculating a parent’s base child support obligations may not exceed the party’s total obligation. Furthermore, a district court’s decision to award reasonable attorney fees and costs will stand absent an abuse of discretion. Here, the district court deviated from NAC 425.150(1)’s framework and increased the appellant’s child support obligation by nearly 823.04. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to reduce the appellant’s montly child support obligation to no more than an additional $824.04 per month above the base child support obligation. The district court also awarded attorney fees to the respondant. This decision was not an abuse of discretion because the appellant used his superior wealth to unnecessarily increase litigation costs
Flangas v. Perfect Marketing, LLC 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (April 14, 2022)
Get PDFThe Court affirmed the district court’s order denying a motion to set aside a domesticated foreign judgement after respondent was properly served and judgement was properly domesticated in Nevada. The Court also concluded that enforcement of the foreign judgement did not violate due process because respondent served the domestication notice by certified mail. This type of service is reasonably calculated to reach the interested party. The Court affirmed
Guidry v. State, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 2, 2022)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of Nevada, reviewing the case de novo, considered whether the errors committed by the prosecution at trial entitled the appellant to relief from her convictions. The Court held that the ambiguous jury instruction on the count of second-degree murder was a prejudicial error, warranting a reversal of the conviction. As to the charges of robbery, grand larceny, and leaving the scene, for which the appellant was also convicted, claims of prosecutorial misconduct and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence were not sufficient to warrant a reversal. Given the reversal on the second-degree murder charge, however, the Court vacated the sentences on the remaining convictions and remanded for reconsideration on the matter
Cegavske v. Hollowood, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 28, 2022)
Get PDFIn an opinion drafted by Justice Stiglich, the Court considered whether initiative sponsors may withdraw a petition or whether an initiative petition’s signatories or the public acquire any rights in a petition. This appeal involves two verified initiative petitions to place questions on the ballot for the Nevada 2022 general election and the sponsors\u27 withdrawal of the initiative petitions. Although Nevada law provides a procedure to withdraw an initiative petition and directs that “no further action may be taken on [a withdrawn] petition,”2 Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske refused to honor the withdrawals of the two petitions at issue here. The sponsors then sought and obtained writs of mandamus and prohibition from the district court to compel her to recognize the withdrawals and thereby prevent the questions from appearing on the 2022 ballot. The Secretary of State appealed, arguing that the statute setting forth the withdrawal procedure, NRS 295.026, is unconstitutional. The Court concluded that NRS 295.026 is a permissible exercise of the Legislature\u27s power to enact statutes to facilitate the people\u27s initiative power and is thus not unconstitutional, finding that the district court abused its discretion in issuing a writ of prohibition
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. and Conservation Ass\u27n vs. Diamond Valley Ranch, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (June 16, 2022)
Get PDFThis case addressed the scarcity of water in the Diamond Valley Hydrologic Basin located in Eureka County, Nevada. The Basin was over-appropriated and over-pumped causing the groundwater withdrawals from the Basin to exceed its perennial year. In 2011, Nevada Legislature enacted NRS 534.037 and NRS 534.110(7) to address the scarcity of groundwater in Nevada’s over-appropriated basins. NRS 534.110(7) provides that the State engineer may designate an over-appropriated basin a Critical Management Area (VMA). After an area is designated, NRS 534.037 allowed rights holders to petition the State Engineer to approve a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) that set forth the necessary steps for removal of the basin’s designation as a CMA. Finally, to determine whether to approve the GMP, the State Engineer is required to weigh the factors under NRS 534.037(2).
Diamond Valley was designated a CMA and its rights holder submitted a GMP to the State Engineer for approval. The GMP deviated some from the guiding principles underlying Nevada’s water law statutes (the doctrine of prior appropriation, which dictates that priority is assigned based on first in time, first in right to put the water to beneficial use). The State Engineer approved the Diamond Valley GMP.
The crux of the case was whether NRS 534.037 and NRS 534.110(7) allowed the State Engineer to approve a GMP that deviated from the doctrine of prior appropriation. The Court held that the Legislature unambiguously gave the State Engineer discretion to approve a GMP that departed from the doctrine of prior appropriation and other statutes in Nevada’s statutory water scheme
In Defense of Deportation Defense
Get PDFRecent years have seen growing momentum toward expanding public funding for legal defense of immigrants fighting deportation. Yet, some recent scholarship argues that government-funded deportation defense carries the risk of legitimizing and entrenching an unsalvageable immigration enforcement system that should simply be abolished. As a result, immigrant rights advocates might hesitate to support deportation defense. This Essay argues that such hesitation would be a mistake. Legal defense is the most feasible means available right now to stop many deportations, and expanding deportation defense resources will strengthen the immigrant rights movement locally and nationally. Expanding deportation defense should be a high priority for local and national immigrant rights advocates over the short- and medium-term future
