Oral Argument Calendar: Oct. 13

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear 5 oral arguments today:

Lord v. Chew,

Docket No. 49969

Las Vegas-10:00 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas and Pickering

This is an appeal from a Clark County district court order in a tort action. Appellant Robert Lord was severely injured while participating in a high-tech scavenger hunt in Las Vegas. Lord was rendered a blind quadriplegic when he fell approximately 30 feet head-first down an abandoned mine shaft. Lord and his wife, appellant Jacqueline Deerr-Lord, filed suit against settling defendants Joe Belfiore, Kristina Belfiore, Kevin Shields, Walter Smith, Scott Schell, and Argentena Consolidating Mining Co., and proceeded to trial against the only non-settling defendant, respondent Chee Chew. The Lords appeal the jury's defense verdict in favor of Chew. ISSUES:  (1) Whether the district court erred in refusing various jury instructions related to vicarious liability; (2) Whether the district court erred in failing to hold the pre-injury release of liability unenforceable as a matter of law; (3) Whether the district court erred in awarding Chew attorney fees and costs; and (4) Whether judicial misconduct requires reversal. 


Bell v. American Family Mutual Ins.,

Docket Nos. 50162 and 54090

Las Vegas-10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas and Pickering

 Appellant Maulidi Bell was injured in an auto accident with Andre Bailey, whom respondent American Family insured. Bell obtained a $1,000,000 default judgment against Bailey in a Clark County District Court in excess of the $15,000 / $30,000 policy limits, the whole of which he seeks to collect from American Family.  ISSUES:  (1) Whether the third party appellant's counterclaims were barred by the doctrine of claim or issue preclusion based on a prior judge's ruling in a separate case, such that the district court properly reversed its earlier order allowing the third party to proceed in the insurer's action for declaratory relief (2) Whether a third-party claimant may bring a direct action for bad faith against an insurer, after obtaining a judgment against the insured, thus allowing the third-party to recover punitive damages in excess of the insurance policy limits, and (3) Whether Nevada allows an injured party, after securing a judgment against an insured tortfeasor, to execute on the judgment and acquire then assert the tortfeasor's first party cause of action for bad faith. 


Fanders v. Riverside Resort and Casino,

Docket No. 51225

Las Vegas-11:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas and Pickering

Appellant Juana Fanders was employed as a guest room attendant at the Riverside Resort & Casino in Laughlin, Nevada. On the day that she quit her job at Riverside, and before leaving the casino premises, Fanders was escorted to Riverside's security office where casino security guards allegedly assaulted and wrongfully imprisoned her. Fanders filed a civil action against the security guards and Riverside (collectively respondents) alleging assault and battery, wrongful imprisonment, and negligence. The Clark County district court granted summary judgment to respondents, ruling that Fanders' sole remedy was provided by the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA). ISSUES:  (1) Whether Fanders was an employee at the time she was injured, (2) Whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Fanders' injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, and (3) Whether workers' compensation is Fanders' only recourse on her intentional tort claims against her former co-employees or against her former employer?


Stephans (Stuard)  v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 52254

Las Vegas-1:30 p.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas and Pickering

Appellant Stuard Stephans and his codefendant were apprehended outside of a retail store after they were observed stealing three bottles of Ezra Fitch cologne each.  Stephans now challenges a Clark County judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count each of burglary, grand larceny, and conspiracy to commit larceny.  At trial the State attempted to prove the value of each cologne bottle through the testimony of the store security guard, who testified that he knew the price of the cologne based on the price tag on the bottle.  ISSUES:  (1) Whether sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to support Stephans' conviction for grand larceny, (2) Whether the store security guard's testimony regarding the price of the bottle of cologne was inadmissible hearsay, (3) Whether the district court erred by rejecting Stephans' proposed jury instruction, which advised the jury that "[t]he mere fact that two people are committing the same type of crime at the same location is insufficient in and of itself to prove a conspiracy."  (4) Whether the district court erred by failing to dismiss a juror for cause, and (5) Whether the district court erred by limiting Stephans' counsel's questioning of potential jurors.


Sparks v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity,

Docket No. 50668

Las Vegas-2:00 p.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas and Pickering

This appeal arises from an altercation that occurred during a tailgate at a football game between the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Various persons from UNR and UNLV associated with Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity (ATO) attended a tailgate in an area reserved by the UNR Alumni Association and in which ATO served free alcohol. Several ATO members and non-ATO members, including Jeffrey Clack (non-ATO), left that area and wandered into another tailgate section where the car of appellants Roy and Andrea Sparks was located. The Sparks returned to their car to find Clack and a few other guys leaning on it. Andrea asked them to leave, and then Roy approached and also asked them to leave. Suddenly, an altercation broke out, during which Clack bit off the end of Roy's nose.  The Sparks filed suit against Clack and various university, alumni, and ATO entities alleging negligence; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; misrepresentation; and false imprisonment. The Sparks entered into a settlement agreement with the university defendants. The alumni defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The ATO defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court also granted. Appellants appeal both orders of the district court.  ISSUES:  (1) Whether the district court erred in granting the Alumni respondents' motion to dismiss on the ground that appellants did not exercise reasonable diligence in determining the identity of the true defendants; (2) Whether the district court's failure to comply with NRCP 56(c) in granting the ATO respondents' motion for summary judgment warrants reversal; (3) Whether the ATO respondents' motion for summary judgment was  procedurally deficient; (4) Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the ATO respondents were negligent; (5) Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the ATO respondents are liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the ATO respondents are liable for the intentional torts committed by Jeffrey Clack against Sparks. 


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Oral Argument Calendar: Oct. 13.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ranchocabron.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/295

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on October 13, 2010 8:03 AM.

Nevada Supreme Court Oral argument Calendar: October 12 was the previous entry in this blog.

Nevada Supreme Court issues 2 opinions 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