Entries tagged with “civil appeals” from Harmfulerror

The Court issued its last published opinion in a criminal case on January 14, 2010.  That case involved the publication of a previously unpublished order.  The last original opinion in a criminal case was issued on December 10, 2009.

For those interested in civil cases, here you go:

Easton Business Opportunities v. Town Executive Suites-Eastern Marketplace - "This dispute involves a commission claimed under an exclusive right-to-sell brokerage agreement for the sale of a business.  After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the seller and against the broker's assignee.  It found the assignment ineffective and the commission unrecoverable, based on the broker's breach of an implied duty to have given the seller a list of the people to whom the broker had shown the business, to whom the seller could not sell during the extension period without incurring liability for a commission.  The agreement, as written, supports the opposite result and should have been upheld.  Upholding the commission claim makes it necessary to reach the assignee's fraudulent conveyance claims, as to which unresolved issues of fact remain.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand."

State, DMV v. Taylor-Caldwell - In this appeal, we confirm that a single test to determine the concentration of alcohol in a person's breath will require revocation of a driver's license.  We conclude that while NRS 484.386(1) requires that two consecutive samples of breath be taken to provide an evidentiary basis for the concentration of alcohol in a person's breath, NRS 484.384 does not require that the two consecutive samples be over the legal limit to mandate revocation; only one valid sample must be over the legal limit in order for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to revoke a driver's license.  The requirements in NRS 484.386(1) that two samples be taken and that the test results be within 0.02 of each other is merely an evidentiary requirement to validate the test.

Saylor v. Arcotta - "In this appeal, we clarify the applicable limitations periods for equitable indemnity and contribution claims.  In doing so, we conclude that claims for equitable indemnity are subject to the limitations period prescribed by NRS 11.190(2)(c), while claims for contribution are subject to the limitations period prescribed by NRS 17.285.  Because no judgment has been entered in the case at hand, and thus the applicable statutes of limitations have not yet begun to run, we reverse the district court's summary judgment as to appellants' third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution."

Schwartz v. Schwartz -   "We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a full and proper analysis of whether lump-sum alimony was appropriate in this case and hold that a district court should assess not only age disparity as set forth in Daniel v. Baker, 106 Nev. 412, 794 P.2d 345 (1990), but should also assess whether the life expectancy of the payor makes the award illusory."

Coast to Coast Demo v. Real Equity Pursuit - "This is an appeal from a judgment entered by confession.  The appellants, who are the judgment debtors, acknowledged the debt but challenge the confession on statutory grounds and as unconscionable.  We affirm."

In Foster v. Dingwall, the Nevada Supreme Court clarifies the procedure set forth in Honeycutt v. Honeycutt, which concerns NRCP 60(b)(2) motions.  The filing of a notice of appeal does not toll the time for a NRCP 60(b) motion.

The Court also issued a second opinion in Foster v. Dingwall, which concerns the strikingo of a pleading as a discovery sanction and the burden of proof for an NRCP 55(b) prove-up hearing to establish a default.

The Court issued an opinion in NAIW v. Nevada Self-Insurers Association.  It addresses NRS 616C.110 and whether activities of daily living are proper considerations in workers' comp. actions.

I have a brief due today, so you're on your own for reading these.  If anyone sees anything with application to criminal cases, please let me know.

MGM Mirage v. Nevada Ins. Guaranty Ass'n - self-insured employers under the Workers' Compensation Act are not barred from recovering payment from the Nevada Insurance Guaranty Assocation for their covered workers' compensation claims payable by their isolvent excess insurance carrier.

St. James Village, Inc. v. Cunningham - servient estate, unilateral relocation of easements and inconvenience of dominant estate owners. 

Reading these opinions reaffirms my desire to practice criminal law.  I'm skippping analysis of both.

In Stromberg v. District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court, in an en banc opinion authored by Justice Cherry, grants an original petition for a writ of mandamus which challenged a district court's decision to deny the defendant's request to apply for treatment pursuant to NRS 484.37941.  The Court reaffirms its recent holding in Picetti v. State that the statute allows an offender entering a plea of guilty on or after the statute's effective date to apply for treatment.  The Court also hilds that the statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine by giving district courts powers that they prosecutor claims to be reserved to the prosecutors. 

In Savage v. District Court, the Court, in an en banc opinion of two consolidated cases, grants petitions for writs of mandamus challenging district court refusals to consider applications for treatment pursuant to NRS 484.37941.  The statute does not require counties to create treatment programs, but does require district courts to oversee the procedures and conditions of probation imposed upon the offender at the time the district court's accepts the offender's application for treatment.  District court's have jurisdiction to order the Department of Parole and Probation to supervise offenders whose applications are granted under the statute.  Finally, the court finds that the statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.

The Court also issued opinions in several civil cases:

Stalk v. Mushkin - statutes of limitations on claims of intentional interference with prospective business advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from an attorney-client relationship.

State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Terracin -  revocation of driver's license based upon a conviction for 1st time DUI that is not really a 1st time DUI.

Attorney General v. District Court (Philip Morris) - issues concerning the adjustment of Nevada's annual payment from tobacco companies based on Nevada's enforcement of its qualifying statute must be arbitrated.

Garcia v. Scolari's Food & Drug - occupational disease & administrative proceedings & good cause.