Oral Argument Calendar: Nov. 4

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

State v. Huebler (Charles),

Docket No. 50953

Reno High School - 9:30 a.m. - Full Court (Justice Saitta disqualified)

This is an appeal from a Washoe County district court order granting Charles Huebler's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Huebler was convicted in the district court, pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of lewdness with a child under the age of 14.  He was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 10 years.  While Huebler did not file a direct appeal of his conviction, he did file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  In his petition, Huebler argued that his right to due process was violated because the State failed to disclose evidence favorable to his defense, which the prosecution has a duty to do under the United States Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  The district court granted Huebler's petition, and the State is now appealing that decision.  ISSUES: Did the district court err in determining that Huebler had established a claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland?


LeMans Corp. v. Provenza (Joseph),

Docket No. 51026

Reno High School - 10:30 a.m. - Full Court (Justice Saitta disqualified)

This appeal and cross-appeal in a products liability case arose from a motocross motorcycle accident that caused severe burns to over 90 percent of Joseph Provenza's body.  The appeals are from a multimillion dollar judgment and a post-judgment order denying a new trial.  LeMans Corporation manufactured the clothing Joseph was wearing at the time of the crash.  Joseph and his parents, Michael and Kim Provenza, sued several related Yamaha companies, which manufactured and distributed the motocross motorcycle Joseph was riding.  The Provenzas also sued LeMans because, the Provenzas contended, the LeMans clothing exacerbated Joseph's injuries.  In the early months of litigation, Michael Provenza and agents of the Provenzas' trial counsel deliberately altered and destroyed portions of the motocross motorcycle.  When Yamaha's experts attempted to inspect the motorcycle, they discovered the alterations.  As a sanction, the district court dismissed claims against Yamaha.  However, the district court denied a similar motion to dismiss filed by LeMans, and the case proceeded to trial.  A jury returned a verdict against LeMans for approximately $41 million in damages, plus approximately $10 million in prejudgment interest.  The district court modified the judgment to exclude prejudgment interest for the reasonable value of medical services that the Provenzas had obtained for free from Shriners Hospital.  LeMans now appeals the judgment against it, and the Provenzas have filed a cross-appeal challenging the modification of the judgment.  ISSUES: Did the district court err in failing to dismiss the action against LeMans?  Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying a new trial?  Did the district court err in amending the judgment to delete prejudgment interest on one element of the Provenzas' damages? 


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Oral Argument Calendar: Nov. 4.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ranchocabron.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/300

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on October 28, 2010 8:20 AM.

Oral Argument Calendar: Nov. 2 was the previous entry in this blog.

Oral Argument Calendar: Nov. 5 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0