Entries tagged with “oral arguments” from Harmfulerror

Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

Docket No. 53693

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

This personal injury appeal involves process-service issues.  In the underlying case, appellant Gabriela Saavedra-Sandoval filed suit against respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., after allegedly slipping and falling while shopping.  Saavedra-Sandoval subsequently served the summons and complaint upon a co-manager at the store where the incident occurred. Wal-Mart claims that its registered agent was never properly served and that it did not receive notice of the lawsuit until more than one year after the complaint was filed. Saavedra-Sandoval moved the Clark County district court for an enlargement of time to effect proper service over one year after the expiration of NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day period for serving the summons and complaint. Wal-Mart filed a countermotion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The district court denied Saavedra-Sandoval's motion and granted Wal-Mart's countermotion to dismiss, finding that Saavedra-Sandoval failed to properly serve Wal-Mart within 120 days and did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. ISSUES: (1) Did Wal-Mart waived the defense of insufficient service of process?  (2) Should this court revisit its decision in Scrimer v. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 507, 998 P.2d 1190 (2000), in light of the fact that NRCP 4(i) was amended in 2004? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that Saavedra-Sandoval failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve Wal-Mart's registered agent within 120 days. 

Las Vegas Sands, Inc. v. Suen,

Docket No. 53163

Carson City -10:30 a.m. - Full Court

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a jury verdict on an unjust enrichment claim that arose out of international business transactions between appellants Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (LVSI), Sheldon Adelson, and William Weidner and respondent Richard Suen. LVSI owns an assortment of casino and hotel operations. Adelson is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of LVSI and Weidner was LVSI's President. Suen conducts business in Hong Kong, Macau, and the People's Republic of China (PRC). He contacted Adelson after Macau announced that it intended to end its government-sanctioned monopoly of gaming. Suen told Adelson that he and his business associates had government connections in Macau and the PRC that could help LVSI obtain a Macau gaming license. After the parties met, Suen and his business associates arranged meetings in Beijing between Adelson, Weidner, and high-ranking government officials from the PRC. At one such meeting in Beijing, Adelson discussed his desire to build a resort in Macau and a Vice Premier of the PRC invited Adelson to make a bid for a gaming license. Adelson also assisted the Mayor of Beijing during this trip by speaking to Congressman Tom DeLay about a resolution pending in the United States House of Representatives. Following these successful meetings, Suen exchanged faxes with LVSI regarding compensation for his services. Weidner offered to pay a success fee to Suen and his group if LVSI obtained a Macau gaming license. Suen attempted to accept this offer on behalf of respondent Round Square Company Limited. Although Suen is one of two principals for Round Square, none of the other group members helping LVSI obtain a gaming license were associated with this entity.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err because Suen lacked standing allowing him to recover in quantum meruit for the efforts of his associates? (2) Did the district court err by failing to exclude the procurement deal as an offer to compromise? (3) Did substantial evidence support the jury's verdict that Suen performed valuable services for LVSI, (4) Did the district court err by admitting a statement with layers of hearsay (5) Did the district court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the presumptions of governmental regularity? (6) Did the district court err by granting summary judgment to LVSI on the fraud and breach of contract claims? 

Carstarphen v. Milsner,

Docket No. 51631

Carson City -11:30 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal presents a rather unique procedural issue involving NRCP 41(e)'s five-year mandatory dismissal rule. In the underlying proceedings in Washoe County, the district court the district court twice granted appellant, the plaintiff below, John Carstarphen's motion to toll NRCP 41(e)'s five-year period for bringing the case to trial, based on a prior order entered in response to the parties' stipulation.  That order "stay[ed] any motions or any decision on pending motions, as well as formal discovery proceedings, until further stipulation of the parties, or order of the Court." Of note here, both the stipulation and stay order were silent as to the expiration of the NRCP 41(e) period. Moreover, neither party brought to the district court's attention this court's decision in Prostack v. Lowden, 96 Nev. 230, 606 P.2d 1099 (1980), which held that despite an order granting a continuance of a trial beyond the five-year period, dismissal under the five-year rule was mandatory because the parties' stipulation for the continuance was silent as to the expiration of the five-year limit and the district court judge was not made aware of the five-year rule issue.  In this case, after the five-year period had expired, respondent moved the district court to dismiss the action, arguing the Prostack holding for the first time. Based on Prostack, the district court dismissed the action. This appeal followed. ISSUE: (1) Did the district court err in dismissing the action?  (2) Should this court adopt a rule that the running of the NRCP 41(e) five-year prescriptive period is tolled during a court-ordered stay of pretrial discovery and motion practice (3) What standard of review governs a district court's consideration of a motion to set a preferential trial date that seeks to have trial begin before the NRCP 41(e) five-year period expires and, under the circumstances of this case, did the district court improperly deny appellant's motion for a preferential trial date. 

Ybarra (Robert) v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 52167

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

Robert Ybarra was convicted of first-degree murder, battery with the intent to commit a sexual assault, and sexual assault in White Pine County.  This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and death sentence.  Thereafter, Ybarra unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief four times.  In this, his fourth post-conviction petition, Ybarra claimed that he was mentally retarded and therefore not subject to the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia.  Initially, the district court denied the petition as procedurally barred, but on appeal this court determined that the district court erred by dismissing the claim and remanded the matter for appropriate proceedings.  On remand, the district court considered additional pleadings, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and rejected Ybarra's mental retardation claim on the merits.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court err by concluding that Ybarra was not mentally retarded (2) Did the denial of Ybarra's motion to recuse the district court judge violate his state and federal right to due process.

Hardy Companies, Inc. v. SNMARK, LLC,

Docket No. 52758

Carson City -10:30 a.m. - Full Court

This mechanic's lien dispute centers around the attempt by appellant W.E. O'Neil Construction Company of California and its subcontractor appellant Hardy Companies, Inc., to foreclose mechanics' liens on property owned by respondent SNMARK, LLC.  O'Neil had contracted with lessee Wickes Furniture to build out a large commercial space in a shopping center owned by SNMARK.  Neither O'Neil nor Hardy served pre-lien notices on SNMARK.  However, SNMARK knew about and was involved with the construction.  The district court in Clark County determined none of the lien claimants served SNMARK with a pre-lien notice, as required by NRS 108.245.  The district court granted SNMARK's motion to expunge the mechanics' liens and granted summary judgment.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  (1) Was O'Neil excused from serving pre-lien notice because it was the prime contractor and contracted directly with the owner? (2) Did SNMARK's actual notice negate the need to serve the property owner with a pre-lien notice? (3) Has the actual knowledge exception from Fondren v. K/L Complex, Ltd., 106 Nev. 705, 800 P.2d 719 (1990) been overruled by subsequent legislative amendments? (4) Is SNMARK estopped from invoking the pre-lien statute because it is not a disinterested owner? 

Lawrence v. Clark,

Docket No. 54165

Carson City -11:30 a.m. - Full Court

This matter involves land that was held and administered by the Colorado River Commission (CRC), an executive agency of the State of Nevada.  Pursuant to the Fort Mohave Valley Development Law (FMVDL), the CRC administered thousands of acres in the Fort Mohave Valley, which is part of the Colorado River basin in Clark County, Nevada.  In 2007, the Legislature substantially revived the FMVDL. The revision was primarily concerned with transferring public lands from the CRC to Clark County. The revised FMVDL ordered the CRC and the Nevada State Land Registrar to convey all the land once administered by the CRC to Clark County. The CRC executed a deed to Clark County for all of the land--the Registrar did not. It deeded most of the land but refused to deed over a small portion of land that lies just adjacent to the Colorado River (the Disputed Land).  Respondent Clark County filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking to have the district court order appellant James R. Lawrence, in his official capacity as the Nevada State Land Registrar, to convey the Disputed Land. The Registrar filed a counterclaim, requesting a declaration that the Disputed Land was subject to the public trust doctrine and therefore inalienable. The district court granted the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Registrar appealed. ISSUE: Did the district court err when it granted the County's motion for judgment of the pleadings?

Lockwood (Joshua) v. State of Nevada,
Docket Nos. 52615/50864
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court
Joshua Lockwood was convicted of three counts of sexual assault of a child under 16. After his trial, Lockwood moved for a new trial, arguing that a juror had engaged in misconduct by conducting Internet research and, during deliberations, telling the other jurors what she had learned. Lockwood appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial. ISSUES: Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence? Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct?

In re: Amerco Derivative Litigation,
Docket No. 51629
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Full court
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a shareholder derivative action. AMERCO is a Nevada corporation whose main operating subsidiary is U-Haul International, Inc. In 2002, Paul Shoen filed a derivative suit against AMERCO and others for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. Shoen sought to forego the requirement of making a demand upon the board of directors prior to commencement of the action, alleging that such a demand was futile. The district court granted AMERCO's motion to dismiss based on the failure to adequately allege demand futility. After that decision was appealed, this court reversed the district court's decision, clarifying the demand futility standards and remanding for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again granted motions to dismiss the action on the grounds that a 1995 settlement between AMERCO and some of its other shareholders barred the claims in this suit, and that appellants lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of AMERCO. ISSUES: Did the district court err in concluding that a prior settlement precludes the appellants from pursuing their claims? Did the district court err in concluding that appellants lack standing to pursue their claims?

Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) v. Roth (Alyson),
Docket Nos. 50262/52496
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court
This case arises from a car accident in Clark County. Alyson Roth was a passenger in her own vehicle, which was being driven by Jennifer Stapleton, when the vehicle rolled over and crashed. Roth was ejected from the car and severely injured. Roth sued the car manufacturer, BMW, alleging various vehicle defects, including a defective seat belt assembly. While Nevada law generally prohibits the admission of evidence regarding the nonuse of a seat belt, the trial judge permitted BMW to use seat belt evidence for the limited purpose of refuting Roth's claim that the seat belt assembly was defective and caused her injuries. The jury found that the BMW vehicle was not defective but that the driver, Stapleton, was negligent. Roth moved for a new trial, arguing that BMW exceeded the allowed use of the seat belt evidence. The district court granted the motion for a new trial as to both BMW and Stapleton. As a sanction for attorney misconduct, the district court directed BMW to pay both Roth and Stapleton their attorney fees and costs for the first trial. ISSUES: Did the district court err in granting a new trial? If a new trial was appropriate, did the district court err in directing BMW to pay Roth's and Stapleton's attorney fees and costs? Did the district court err in excluding evidence that BMW complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Ford (Jerome) v. State of Nevada,
Docket No. 52272
Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full court
Jerome Ford was arrested during a "sting" operation on Las Vegas Boulevard South after he approached an undercover police officer who was dressed as a prostitute and, after a brief exchange, pitched the services he had to offer as a pimp. Ford was eventually convicted of pandering. ISSUES: Is Nevada's pandering statute, NRS 201.300, unconstitutionally overbroad and/or vague? Was there sufficient evidence supporting Ford's conviction?

In Re: T. L, A Child,
Docket No. 53959
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons

In this case, the State of Nevada is appealing a Washoe County district court decision not to certify a juvenile, who was seventeen years of age at the time of the alleged crime, as an adult.  The State filed a delinquency petition against the subject minor, T.L., charging him with battery with a deadly weapon.  T.L., who previously had been adjudicated as a delinquent child on a felony charge of maiming an animal, had been placed on probation on that charge and released in September of 2007, but fled and was not located until late January 2009.  He was served with the new delinquency petition the following month. The State then amended the petition to add another charge and sought to certify T.L. as an adult. The juvenile court determined that the certification motion was untimely under WDCR 33(1) and denied the motion on the merits.  The State now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the juvenile court err in denying the State's motion for certification, which were based on T.L.'s personal traits, the allegations of serious and violent acts, and that T.L had posed a threat in the past?  Did the juvenile court err in determining that dismissal of the State's motion for certification was warranted due to its untimely filing in violation of due process and a local rule?

Manor Health Care Center, Inc. v. Monsour,
Docket No. 52796
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons

This is an appeal from a Clark County district court order confirming an arbitration award and entering a final judgment on the award in an elder abuse and wrongful death action. Edward Monsour died while in the care of Manor Health Care Center (MHCC). His estate and heirs sued MHCC for negligence, wrongful death, and statutory violations mandating that the facility provide considerate and respectful care to a vulnerable, elderly person. The parties entered binding arbitration, and the arbitrator found for Monsour's estate and heirs on all causes of action except the wrongful death claim. The arbitrator awarded compensatory damages to Monsour's estate, damages for personal injury and the pain and suffering of Monsour and his heirs, damages for loss of companionship, society, comfort, consortium, and grief and sorrow for Monsour's heirs, and attorney fees. The total damages amounted to $754,431,32. Monsour's estate moved to confirm the arbitration award, but MHCC moved to modify or correct the award.  Senior Judge Stephen Huffaker, the arbitrator, declined to modify the award. MHCC then moved the district court to modify or correct, or vacate the award, but the district court denied MHCC's motion and confirmed the award.  MHCC now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err when it confirmed the arbitration award and denied MHCC's motions to modify, correct, or vacate the arbitration award?  Did the arbitrator erroneously award damages to parties not entitled to recover under applicable law and impermissibly doubled certain awards of damages and attorney fees? 

Mitchell (David) v. State,
Docket No. 50305
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons

In this case, David Winfield Mitchell is appealing his conviction for murdering Sheila Jo Harris in 1982 in Carson City, Nevada.  Mitchell eluded charges for a quarter century until the advent of DNA testing provided evidence of his guilt.  Mitchell was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon.  While that appeal was pending, the State filed a motion to correct the sentence, in which it argued that the district court had improperly sentenced Mitchell on the deadly weapon enhancement pursuant to sentencing guidelines in place at the time of conviction when it should have sentenced him pursuant to the guidelines in place at the time he committed the crime.  The district court granted the State's motion and filed an amended judgment of conviction in which it imposed an equal sentence of life without the possibility of parole for the deadly weapon enhancement as was required by statutes in place at the time Mitchell committed the crime. ISSUES:  Did the district court lack jurisdiction to resentence Mitchell while his appeal was pending?  Do the various other miscellaneous errors claimed by Mitchell warrant reversal of his conviction? 

Fraser (Ryan) v. State,
Docket No. 53675
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons

This case arises out of an incident where appellant Ryan Fraser digitally penetrated a four-year-old girl.  The victim then told numerous adults that Fraser sexually abused her, but her accounts of the abuse varied.  In relation to the victim, the State charged Fraser with two counts of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14 years.  Before trial, the Lyon district court found the victim competent to testify. The district court also ruled that the victim's out-of-court statements regarding the sexual abuse and testimony about a prior bad act were admissible. At trial, the victim testified that Fraser performed cunnilingus on her.  During cross-examination, she also confirmed that the State's lead prosecutor told her what to say during trial. In response to the witness tampering allegations, the district court permitted the prosecutor to testify.  Following trial, the jury convicted Fraser of one count of sexual assault for the digital penetration of a child. Fraser now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to testify at trial?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by finding E.G. competent to testify? Did the district court violate Fraser's Sixth Amendment rights or abuse its discretion by admitting testimony about the victim's hearsay statements? Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of an uncharged prior bad act of child sexual assault?

Schulz (Donald) v. Taylor (Tracy),
Docket No. 53731
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court

This is a groundwater rights case. The Schulz family sought to sell their groundwater rights to Carson City and applied to change the manner and place of use of their rights to facilitate the sale. When the State Engineer did not act on the application, the family filed a district court action and moved for partial summary judgment, declaratory relief, and a writ of mandamus. The district court denied summary judgment and declaratory relief, but granted the writ of mandamus, instructing the State Engineer to adjudicate the Schulz Family's claimed groundwater rights. The Schulz family now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in determining that Nevada's groundwater forfeiture statute, NRS 534.090(1), is retroactively applicable to the family's claimed rights? Did the district court err in finding the forfeiture statute constitutional? Did the district court err by refusing to grant equitable relief? Did the district court err when it failed to resolve definitional ambiguities in the statute, or alternatively, to declare the statute void for vagueness?  Did the district court err in not applying issue preclusion?  Did the district court err in directing the State Engineer to conduct forfeiture proceedings? Does NRS 534.090(1) constitute a bill of attainder?

Orion Portfolio Services v. Co. of Clark (NRAP 5),
Docket No. 53969
Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal involves two certified questions, pursuant to NRAP 5, which arise from a lawsuit over University Medical Center of Southern Nevada's decision to sell certain health care accounts through a public auction.  UMC's invitation to bid at the auction contained a provision that if UMC determined not to sell an account that it initially intended to sell, it could substitute that account with an account of equal value.  However, UMC issued an addendum to its bid invitation, noting that no accounts would be replaced.  Ultimately, UMC accepted appellant Orion Portfolio Services' bid.  The parties entered into a purchase agreement that included a provision that allowed the parties to replace certain accounts.  After the parties finalized the contract, Orion asked UMC to substitute a number of accounts, under the agreement, but UMC refused.  Orion instituted a breach of contract action against UMC in federal district court and UMC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parties' contract is void because it materially differs from the invitation to bid.  Orion opposed the motion and filed a countermotion for summary judgment, arguing Nevada's statute concerning a government entity's sale of personal property, NRS 332.185, does not require that a government entity conduct a public auction of personal property, but rather gives the government entity discretion to hold a public auction, thereby making Nevada's public bidding statutes, set forth in NRS Chapters 332 and 333, inapplicable.  Because the parties' arguments were questions of Nevada law that have never been addressed by the Nevada Supreme Court, the United States District Court certified two questions.  ISSUES:  When a local government entity sells property at a public auction, does NRS 332.185 require that entity to follow the public bidding rules outlined in NRS Chapters 332 and 333?  Is a contract obtained through a public auction and competitive bidding void when it materially differs from the contents of the invitation to bid? 

Docket No. 50301
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal concerns the procedure that governing bodies may use to amend master plans and adopt zoning ordinances.  In this case, the City of Reno annexed vacant land in Cold Springs Valley after developers proposed large-scale projects for the area. The Reno Planning Commission then approved master-plan amendments and a zoning ordinance that changed the land use from primarily rural to urban classifications. After the commission approved these changes, the Reno City Council passed and adopted them. The City then submitted the master-plan amendments to the Washoe County Regional Planning Commission. Citizens for Cold Springs (consisting of taxpayers, residents, and property owners of the subject land) filed a lawsuit against the City and the district court ruled that the City violated Nevada law when adopting the zoning ordinance. The City now appeals. ISSUES:  Did the City violate the law by adopting master-plan amendments prior to the regional conformance review? Did the City violate the law by adopting a zoning ordinance that did not initially conform to the City's master plan? Did the City violate the law by failing to make a finding regarding water services and infrastructure prior to adopting the ordinance? Did the City violate the law because the ordinance does not promote the orderly development of land?

Wyeth v. Rowatt (Arlene),
Docket No. 51234
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Full Court

This is an appeal of a jury verdict against a pharmaceutical company in favor of three women who claimed the company's hormone therapy drugs caused their breast cancer.  Respondents Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield, and Pamela Forrester sued Wyeth in Washoe County district court alleging the drugs caused their breast cancer and that the warnings provided with the drug were inadequate.  The jury initially returned a verdict in favor of respondents for $134.6 million but then reduced the award to $134.1 million after re-instruction by the district court on damage awards. The district court remitted the amount of damages awarded but denied Wyeth's motion for a new trial and certified the jury award.  Wyeth now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err when it: (1) awarded punitive damages; (2) denied a new trial motion when the jury deliberated regarding punitive damages in phase 1 of the trial instead of waiting until phase 2 as instructed; (3) violated Wyeth's due process rights when it determined the amount of punitive damages awarded in this case, even after remittitur; (4) determined the amount of compensatory damages it ordered on remittitur; (5) gave a substantial cause instruction instead of a but for causation instruction; (6) gave a life expectancy jury instruction based on a mortality table; (7) applied Nevada law to two of the Plaintiffs' claims; (8) improperly allowed the use of Nevada law to punish conduct in Oregon and Washington in violation of the U.S. Constitution; (9) allowed the Plaintiffs' counsel to improperly argue before the jury by suggesting that the amount of damages could be based on the annual salaries of three of Wyeth's employee witnesses; (10) allowed Ms. Rowatt's claims, which were barred by the statute of limitations based on when she had notice of her injury and its cause; and (11) awarded attorney fees when it was reasonable for it to reject the offers of judgment based on prior results in related lawsuits. 

Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino v. Phillips (Kathryn),
Docket No. 53191
Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full Court

This is an appeal from a Clark County district court order denying a petition for judicial review of an award of workers' compensation benefits. Appellant Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino (Rio) challenges the benefits award to its employee, respondent Kathryn Phillips, who worked as a dealer at the Rio. While on break, Phillips was descending the staircase that led to the break room when she injured her ankle. Rio's third-party administrator denied Phillips' workers' compensation claim.  A hearing officer affirmed that ruling, but an appeals officer reversed the denial of benefits. Rio filed a petition for judicial review, arguing that Phillips' injury did not arise out of her employment. The district court denied Rio's petition, affirming the appeals officer's order, and this appeal followed.  ISSUE:  Did Phillips' injury arise out of her employment as required by NRS 616C.150. 

Vega (Bernardo) v. State of Nevada,
Docket No. 53752
Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

Bernardo Vega is appealing his convictions by a jury of three counts of sexual assault with a minor under the age of fourteen and two counts of open and gross lewdness.  Vega's convictions arose out of several incidences involving his step-daughter in Clark County.  ISSUES:  Did sufficient evidence support Vega's convictions on three counts of sexual assault with a minor under the age of fourteen?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the victim's attempted suicides? 

Cobb (Delbert) v. State of Nevada,
Docket No. 50346
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

This case arises out of a series of shootings that occurred in Clark County between November 4 and December 16, 1999.  Cobb pleaded guilty to attempted murder for two of the incidents.  Cobb was found not guilty of a murder that occurred on December 16, 1999, however, the jury convicted him of attempted murder and first-degree murder for the shooting of a father (who later died) and son on November 13, 1999.  Cobb was also convicted of conspiracy.  Cobb now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony, evidence of prior bad acts, and the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness?  Did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the various charges for trial?  Did the State violate Batson v. Kentucky when it used peremptory challenges to strike two minority jurors?  Is Cobb entitled to a new trial because the jury was not selected from a fair cross-section of the community? 

Strickland (Linda) v. Waymire (Edward)

           Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court

Personhood Nevada v. Bristol (Emmily)

           Las Vegas - 11:30. a.m. - Full Court

Strickland v. Waymire,

Docket Nos. 55290/55551

Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal challenges a district court order granting summary judgment in a case involving the interpretation and application of Article 2, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution.  The case began when three residents of Boulder City, Nevada--Edward Waymire, Christine Milburn, and Robert Draney (collectively, Waymire)--submitted petitions to the Secretary of State seeking to recall Linda Strickland and Travis Chandler from the Boulder City Council. The Secretary of State deemed the petitions insufficient under Article 2, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution because they did not contain signatures from at least 25 percent of the voters who actually voted in the election in which Strickland and Chandler were elected.  Waymire filed a complaint against the Secretary of State and the Clark County Registrar of Voters seeking a declaration that Article 2, Section 9 is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, as interpreted by the Secretary of State, and asking the district court to order that the Secretary of State validate the signatures of all registered voters who signed the recall petitions.  The district court granted summary judgment in Waymire's favor, relying in part on S.B. 156, which became effective while the matter was pending.  S.B. 156 amended NRS 306.040 to permit recall petitions to be signed by "any registered voter" in the municipality represented by the public officer.  Strickland moved for a stay in the district court, which was denied.  This court granted appellant Linda Strickland's request for a stay pending appeal.  On appeal, appellants contend that the district court erred by granting summary judgment because Article 2, Section 9 permits recall petition signatures from only those registered voters who "actually voted" in the election in which the challenged public official was elected.  They also assert that Article 2, Section 9 properly limits who may sign a recall petition and that it comports with constitutional equal protection principles.  According to Travis Chandler, S.B. 156 was unconstitutionally enacted because it unilaterally, without giving Nevada voters the final say, interprets a disputed constitutional provision through statutory amendment.  ISSUE:  Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of Waymire?  

Personhood Nevada v. Bristol (Emmily),

Docket No. 55429

Las Vegas - 11:30. a.m. - Full Court

This appeal involves whether the Personhood Nevada initiative should appear on the November 2010 general election ballot.  After Personhood Nevada filed a ballot initiative with the Secretary of State, Emmily Bristol, Mindy Hsu, and Dr. William Ramos filed a complaint in the First Judicial District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Personhood Nevada's initiative from being placed on the ballot for the November 2010 general election.  The district court determined that the ballot initiative failed to comply with the single subject rule set forth in NRS 295.009 and contained a misleading and insufficient description of effect, and thus the court enjoined the Secretary of State from placing it on the ballot.  In its ruling, the district court found that the initiative is complex and broad; the language is overly general and vague; the initiative fails to inform voters of Personhood Nevada's purported purpose for the bill, namely to affect abortion and the rights of fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses; and the initiative fails to inform voters of its material consequences. Personhood Nevada appealed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err when it determined that the initiative violated the single-subject rule and contained an inadequate description of effect and thus enjoined the Secretary of State from placing Personhood Nevada's initiative on the ballot?

Sherman (Donald) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty),

Docket No. 50653

Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court

In this case, Donald Sherman is appealing the denial of his second post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Sherman was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, and robbery for beating his estranged girlfriend's father to death with a hammer in Clark County.   The Supreme Court affirmed Sherman's conviction and death sentence on direct appeal.  Sherman then filed his first post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in district court, as well as a supplemental petition.  Both were denied by the district court and the Supreme Court upheld the decision.  Sherman then filed this second post-conviction petition, which the district court also denied based on procedural rules.  The denial of that petition is the subject of this appeal.  ISSUES: Did the district court err in determining that Sherman's claim under McConnell v. State was procedurally barred because Sherman failed to demonstrate prejudice? Did Sherman's claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland provide good cause sufficient to overcome the procedural default? 

Hoffman (Stuart) v. Spring Valley Hospital,

Docket No. 52813

Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal arises from a dispute between Spring Valley Hospital and Medical Center and Dr. Stuart Hoffman.  Spring Valley suspended Dr. Hoffman's medical privileges and submitted a report about Hoffman to the National Practitioner Data Bank pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.  Hoffman disputed the report and filed suit in district court against Spring Valley alleging breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, rescission, defamation per se, and declaratory relief.  Spring Valley filed an answer to Hoffman's complaint and moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that federal law preempted Hoffman's state law claims.  ISSUES:  Did the district court's order granting summary judgment operate as a dismissal under NRCP 12(b)(5)?  Did the district court err by dismissing Hoffman's claim on the ground that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act preempted his state law claims?   

Harris (Linda) v. Asayama (Miyoko),

Docket No. 51388

Las Vegas - 1:30 p.m. - Full Court

This appeal involves procedural issues of first impression regarding the dismissal of a tort action stemming from a motor vehicle accident for failing to timely hold a case conference within NRCP 16.1(e)(1)'s 180-day period.  Linda Marie Harris was injured when her car collided with a vehicle driven by Miyoko Asayama.  Harris filed a district court complaint, which she served on Asayama on March 2, 2007.  Harris allegedly gave Asayama an open-ended extension of time to answer and Asayama filed an answer on June 14, 2007.  On August 6, 2007, Harris filed a request for exemption from arbitration, which the Alternative Dispute Resolution Commissioner granted on August 24, 2007.  Harris subsequently held an early case conference on December 26, 2007, after noticing the conference two days earlier, on December 24.  Asayama did not attend the December 26 conference, however, as she had informed Harris on December 24 that the notice of the conference was inadequate and that her counsel was scheduled to be off on December 26.  Harris subsequently filed an individual case conference report on January 22, 2008.  In the meantime, Asayama filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because Harris failed to hold an NRCP 16.1(b)(1) case conference within the 180-day period set forth in NRCP 16.1(e)(1). The district court granted the motion to dismiss because a case conference was not held in a timely manner and there were no compelling and extraordinary circumstances warranting an extension.  ISSUES:  Was Harris's complaint deemed to be in the court-annexed arbitration program from the moment of filing until it was exempted from the program?  When does NRCP 16.1(e)(1)'s 180-day period for holding a case conference start to run for cases that are not eligible for automatic exemption from the court-annexed arbitration program?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting Asayama's motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, under NRCP 16.1(e)(1) for failing to timely hold a case conference? 

Moon (Joon) v. McDonald Carano Wilson LLP,

Docket No. 51124

Las Vegas - 2:00 p.m. - Full Court

This appeal involves procedural issues of first impression regarding the dismissal of a professional negligence and breach of contract lawsuit against a Nevada law firm for failing to timely file a case conference report within the 240-day period set forth in NRCP 16.1(e)(2).  On November 3, 2006, Joon S. Moon and Patterson Laboratories, Inc., (collectively, Moon) filed a district court complaint against McDonald Carano & Wilson, LLP, and its attorneys William A.S. McGrath and John J. Laxague (collectively, MCW). Moon served the complaint on December 29, 2006, and MCW filed an answer in January 2007.  On March 29, 2007, the arbitration commissioner exempted the case from arbitration.  On November 6, 2007, MCW filed a motion to dismiss under NRCP 16.1(e)(1) and (2), claiming that Moon failed to hold a case conference within the applicable 180-day period and/or file a joint case conference report within the applicable 240-day period.  Moon opposed the motion to dismiss, claiming that an early case conference was held on April 18, 2007, and that the case conference report was not due until November 26, 2007.  Moon filed his case conference report on November 21, 2007.  The district court entered an order dismissing the case after determining that the case was never submitted, ordered, accepted, or remanded into the court-annexed arbitration program and that there was no automatic suspension of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.  ISSUES:  Was Moon's complaint deemed to be in the court-annexed arbitration program from the moment of filing until it was exempted from the program? When does NRCP 16.1(e)(2)'s 240-day period for filing a case conference report start to run for cases that are not eligible for automatic exemption from the court-annexed arbitration program? Did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing Moon's complaint, without prejudice, under NRCP 16.1(e)(2) for failing to timely hold a case conference? Did Moon fail to hold a case conference so that NRCP 16.1(e)(1) provides an alternative basis for affirming the district court's order? 

San Juan (Elias) v. PSC Industrial Outsourcing,
Docket No. 50033
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Chief Justice Parraguirre and Justices Douglas and Pickering

This is a personal injury and workers' compensation case that arose from an explosion at DTI's plant that killed one employee and injured others.  The explosion occurred when inflammable gases from aerosol cans ignited.  DTI was hired by PSC Industrial Outsourcing to decant the aerosol cans.  The employees received workers' compensation benefits for their injuries even though DTI failed to make workers' compensation contributions.  In addition, the employees sued DTI, PSC, and others for their injuries.  The plaintiff argued that PSC owed the employees a duty that could not be delegated to anyone else because PSC contracted with DTI for the performance of inherently dangerous work.  PSC moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion.  ISSUES:  Did PSC owe the employees a duty that could not be delegated?  Does the general rule that workers' compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries apply when DTI was not insured under the workers' compensation system? 

Gonski (Donald) v. District Court (PN II, Inc.),
Docket No. 53414
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

This writ proceeding arises from a district court order compelling arbitration in a constructional defect matter in Washoe County.  Donald and Linda Gonski filed a lawsuit against the builder of their home, PN II, Inc., alleging constructional defects in the home.  The builder asked the district court to compel the parties to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration, which the builder argued is required by the home purchase agreement.  The Gonskis argued that, because the purchase agreement purported to incorporate a second arbitration clause pertaining to defects, but also referred to a statutory dispute resolution process, the purchase contract was unclear and confusing as to whether defect disputes must be arbitrated.  The Gonskis also argued that the purchase agreement failed to provide adequate notice that, by agreeing to arbitrate, important rights were being forfeited.  The district court granted the builder's request to compel the parties to participate in arbitration.  The Gonskis then filed this petition with the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the district court's order.  ISSUES:  Is arbitration of the Gonskis' case required by the parties' agreement? 

Docket No. 52510

Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

Randy Gamwell is appealing his conviction by a jury in Washoe County for burglary and first-degree kidnapping.  Before trial, a psychiatrist retained by Gamwell's counsel contacted the victim regarding an evaluation of Gamwell.  The prosecutor advised the victim not to speak to the psychiatrist.  Gamwell requested that the charges against him be dismissed because the prosecutor's advice violated Gamwell's right to interview witnesses.  The district court denied the request.  During closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that the presumption of innocence no longer applied and referred to Gamwell's decision not to testify in his own defense.  After the jury returned its verdict, Gamwell moved for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge because it appeared that the jury based its verdict on the victim having suffered substantial bodily harm, although no jury instructions addressed that issue.  The district court also denied this motion.  ISSUES: Should the district court have granted the motion to dismiss because of the prosecutor's advice to the victim?  Did the State engage in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument warranting reversal?  Should the district court have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal? 

Via Scotusblog:

The Court is expected to release orders today at 10 a.m. and is expected to release opinions tomorrow.  The following cases are also scheduled for oral argument (Health Care Service Corp. v. Pollitt (09-38), which was originally scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, has been removed from the hearing list because the case was privately settled).

Monday, March 1:

• Berghuis v. Thompkins (08-1470) -- Miranda, police persuasion of an individual in custody
• Holland v. Florida (09-5327) -- extended time to file habeas plea due to defense lawyer's negligence in capital case
• Skilling v. United States (08-1394) -- constitutionality and scope of "honest services" fraud law; effect of pre-trial publicity

Tuesday, March 2:

• McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) -- incorporation of Second Amendment against the states
• Hui v. Castaneda (08-1529; 08-1547) -- "Bivens actions" against doctors and nurses in federal medical facilities over flaws in medical care claimed to violate patients' constitutional rights

Wednesday, March 3:

• Samantar v. Yousuf (08-1555) -- Alien Tort Statute

The Justices will hold a private conference on Friday.

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hugh Ricci, State Engineer,
Docket No. 51603
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

This appeal arises from a dispute over water rights in Washoe County.  In 1980, Nevada Land and Resource Co., LLC (NLRC), received permits to appropriate groundwater from the Dodge Flat Hydrologic Basin for a mining and milling project. In 2000, NLRC applied to change the permit to use the groundwater to service a power generating plant.  The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe contested the applications on several grounds.  After the State Engineer granted the applications, the Tribe petitioned the district court for review of the ruling. The district court denied the petition, and the Tribe now appeals to the Supreme Court.  ISSUE: Does substantial evidence support the State Engineer's findings in granting the applications? 

In re: Nevada State Engineer Ruling No. 5823,
Docket No. 52963
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Full court

This case involves 27 consolidated groundwater applications for the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Basin in Lyon County.  The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe opposed the applications, contending that the groundwater use would ultimately decrease flow into the Pyramid Lake and adversely affect the Tribe's interests.  In Ruling No. 5823, the State Engineer granted all 27 applications.  The Tribe filed a petition for judicial review in the district court in Churchill County.  The Tribe was joined in the petition by Churchill County, which has surface rights in the Carson River that may be affected by changes to the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Basin.  The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction for review of a State Engineer's ruling is determined by the location of the applicant's water rights, which in this case is Lyon County.  The Tribe and Churchill County have appealed the district court's denial of their petition to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition for review?  Should the district court have transferred the petition to Lyon County rather than dismiss it? 

Vanisi (Siaosi) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty),

Docket No. 50607

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

This is Siaosi Vanisi's appeal from a district court order denying his post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  Vanisi was convicted by a Washoe County jury of first-degree murder, robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and grand larceny, for the 1998 murder of a UNR Police sergeant, and the subsequent theft of a car and robbery of two stores.  Vanisi previously appealed his convictions and death sentence, which were affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2001.  Vanisi then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, arguing that his conviction was invalid for numerous reasons.  The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Vanisi has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Does the jury's consideration of an invalid aggravating circumstance warrant a new penalty hearing?  Was Vanisi's trial counsel ineffective?  Was Vanisi's counsel for his appeal ineffective?  Did the district court err in finding Vanisi competent to proceed with his post-conviction petition? 

Mack (Darren) v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 51143

Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Full court (Justice Hardesty voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter)

Darren Mack is appealing his convictions of first-degree murder and attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon.  Mack pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for the killing of his estranged wife.  Mack also pleaded guilty to the shooting of the Washoe County Family Court Judge who was presiding over the couple's divorce, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, in which a defendant pleads guilty without actually admitting guilt.  Before he was sentenced, Mack requested that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming that he did not fully understand the nature and consequences of the pleas.  This request was denied.  Mack was then sentenced to 20 years to life for first-degree murder, and 96 to 240 months for attempted murder, and a consecutive sentence of 96 to 240 months for the use of a deadly weapon.  ISSUES:  Should an understanding of lesser-included offenses be factored into determining whether a defendant's guilty plea is knowing and voluntary?  Should Nevada follow Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs pleas in federal courts?  

Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Governor Jim Gibbons,

Docket No. 53360

Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full court

This appeal arises from a dispute between Governor Jim Gibbons and the Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) over a request by the newspaper for some of the Governor's e-mails.  In 2008, the RGJ made a public records request for e-mails between Governor Gibbons and 10 people over a six-month time period.  In the event that the Governor objected to the request, the RGJ asked that it alternatively be provided with a log indicating, for each e-mail, the sender, all recipients, the message date, and the basis on which access was being denied.  The Governor denied the request, claiming that the requested e-mails were either privileged or not considered public records.  The RGJ filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the district court, seeking access to the e-mails or the alternative log.  After a hearing and a review of the e-mails by the judge, the district court granted the writ as to six e-mails, and denied the writ as to the remaining e-mails.  The RGJ is now appealing the district court's decision.   ISSUES:  What is a public record for purposes of the Nevada Public Records Act?  Should the district court have ordered the Governor to produce the requested log rather than personally reviewing the e-mails and determining which e-mails should be provided? 

Tsai (Paul) v. Hsu (Ann), Docket No. 50549
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This case involves a 1996 settlement agreement in a divorce proceeding between Paul Tsai and Ann Hsu.  Part of the agreement provided that a parcel of land owned by the parties in Las Vegas was to be held in trust to pay for their children's educational expenses.  No trust documents were created at the time the settlement agreement was reached, but apparently the parties quitclaimed the property to their children.  After the divorce, the children lived with Hsu in Hong Kong where they attended private elementary and secondary schools, paid for by Hsu.  In 2007, the property was sold for a sizeable amount of money.  The parties now dispute the allocation of the proceeds from the sale of the property.  ISSUES:  Did the parties transfer their entire interest in the property to their children?  Was the trust meant to finance the children's private elementary and secondary school education when Tsai never consented to sending the children to private elementary and secondary schools?  Did the district court lack jurisdiction to make rulings regarding the trust? 

Salas (Miguel) v. State, Docket No. 51385
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

In this appeal, issues are raised about the grand jury indictment of Miguel Salas, who was a juvenile at the time of an auto theft that led to a high speed chase and a head-on collision.  Salas was certified to stand trial as an adult following the incident in which he and Alberto Spindola broke into and stole an automobile in Las Vegas.  The pair attempted to evade capture by fleeing at high-speed from a police officer.  The chase ended in a head-on collision with another car.  Salas was arrested, certified as an adult, and charged with numerous felony violations.    The justice court, however, dismissed charges of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery for lack of probable cause, but bound over Salas to the district court on the remaining charges.  The State then convened a grand jury, which indicted Salas on the two previously dismissed charges.  Salas was found guilty at trial on all but three charges.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that the State provided Salas with reasonable notice of the grand jury proceedings?  Did the district court have jurisdiction to proceed on the grand jury indictment?  Did Salas demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" to show the district court abused its discretion in failing to remand his case to the juvenile court?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to convict Salas of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery?

Callara v. Las Vegas Hilton, Docket No. 51645
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This is an appeal of a split verdict at trial in a personal injury case.  Roseann Callara slipped and fell in the parking/valet parking drop-off area of the Las Vegas Hilton after which two employees of Hilton moved her to a nearby bench.  Subsequently, Callara sued Hilton for neglecting to keep the area clean and for moving her after she fell.  At trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Callara on her claim that Hilton employees negligently moved her after she fell.  The jury, however, ruled  for Hilton on the claim of failing to keep the area clean.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion when it concluded that Hilton should not be held to admissions made pre-trial?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to submit the admissions to the jury as evidence?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing previously undisclosed witness testimony, and by directly questioning that witness?  Did Hilton have an obligation to create records regarding when areas of its property had been cleaned and should a jury instruction have been given that the Hilton spoiled evidence when Hilton did not destroy any records, but instead never created the records that Callara sought? 

Cacho (Ashton) v. State, Docket No. 51647
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 1:30 p.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

In this case, Ashton Cacho is appealing his 2008 conviction by a Clark County jury for one count each of open or gross lewdness and indecent exposure, and four counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14.    ISSUES:  Are the convictions redundant?  Did the district court err in not conducting a competency hearing regarding the child victim?  Did the State withhold exculpatory evidence and/or engage in prosecutorial misconduct?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict? 

Gamble (Clarence) v. State, Docket No. 52521
Las Vegas (William S. Boyd School of Law) - 10:00 a.m. - Chief Justice Parraguirre, and Justices Hardesty and Pickering (Justice Douglas voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter)

Numerous issues are raised in this appeal by Clarence Gamble, who was convicted of shooting and killing a woman with whom he was romantically involved.  At trial, Gamble claimed he acted in self-defense.  However, eyewitness testimony indicated otherwise.  Gamble was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and aggravated stalking.  Gamble now appeals the judgment of conviction.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in refusing to dismiss the aggravated stalking charge?  Did the district court err in denying Gamble's objections to the State's use of peremptory challenges to excuse two prospective African-American jurors?  Did the district court err in instructions given to the jury?  Did the prosecutor commit misconduct warranting reversal of Gamble's convictions? 

Valley Health System v. Garcia (Waneira), Docket No. 50507 c/w 50509 and 50684
Las Vegas (William S. Boyd School of Law) - 11:00 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

This is an appeal of a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case.  In 1995, Waneira Garcia was about 39 weeks pregnant when she arrived at Valley Hospital in Las Vegas complaining of potential complications with her pregnancy.  Her daughter was delivered via Caesarian section, and suffers from ongoing developmental delays that will likely require ongoing medical treatment.  Garcia attributed her baby's problems to the negligence of the hospital and filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice against her OB/GYN doctor, Joseph Watson, M.D., the hospital, and two of its employees, Mary Kathryn Watts and Madonna Sturgeon.  The district court entered a default judgment against Sturgeon for her failure to appear at the trial.  A jury found in favor of Dr. Watson, but determined that the hospital and its named employees were negligent and awarded Garcia damages and attorney fees.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in entering a default judgment against Sturgeon for her failure to attend the trial?  Did the district court err in instructing the jury?  Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Garcia?

Boorman v. Nev. Memorial Cremation Society, Docket No. 52492
Bishop Gorman High School - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court

This case stems from a request from the United States District Court, District of Nevada, for a Supreme Court decision on legal matters where there is no controlling Nevada precedent.  In the incident leading to the legal action, Richard Boorman succumbed to a lethal dose of alcohol and drugs while in Las Vegas for a bachelor party.  Richard's body was transported to the Clark County coroner for autopsy, where his internal organs were removed.  The coroner maintains that the organs were then placed in a plastic bag and left with the body.  Richard's body was then sent to the mortuary, which embalmed it before returning it to family members in London, England, without his internal organs.  After discovering the absence of Richard's organs, the family filed an action against Memorial Cremation Society, Clark County, and the employees of both entities, alleging, among other claims, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion, related to the mishandling of Richard's body.  Because no clearly controlling Nevada precedent for these issues exists, the district court certified several questions to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  What class of persons may bring a claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress for the mishandling of a deceased person's remains?  Does that person need to be present and observe the negligent act?  Does that person need to demonstrate some physical manifestation of emotional distress?  Does a county coroner's office owe a duty to the family members of a deceased individual not to lose, misplace, or misappropriate the deceased person's organs such that the coroner's office could be liable for emotional distress claims? Does a claim for conversion of a deceased human body or its parts exist under Nevada law, and if so, what class of person may bring such a claim?  If such a claim exists, may a plaintiff recover emotional distress damages arising out of conversion of the human remains?

Chao (Greg) v. State, Docket No. 50336
Bishop Gorman High School - 11:00 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal raises treaty issues between the United States and Canada. Greg Chao, a Canadian citizen who was apprehended in Canada, is appealing his conviction in Clark County for robbery and first-degree murder in the death of Don Idiens, a fellow Canadian, who was in Las Vegas for an extended vacation.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err when it declined to suppress a statement Chao made to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department detectives while he was in custody in Canada because the statement was allegedly obtained in violation of a treaty between the United States and Canada? Did the district court err in permitting the State to introduce evidence of Chao's testimony at the Canadian extradition hearing because such testimony is akin to testimony in a suppression hearing in Nevada, which is inadmissible under NRS 47.090? 

Crawford & Co. v. Strong-Puzey,

Docket No. 52282

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This case involves a workplace injury and whether an injured party who accepts a lump-sum settlement can reopen the claim.  In the underlying case, Connie Strong-Puzey underwent surgery on her ankle to repair damage caused by a workplace injury.  During the surgery, Strong-Puzey experienced a low level of oxygen saturation.  Following surgery, she demonstrated a marked change in her behavior and a decline in both her mental and physical health.  Nevertheless, Strong-Puzey elected to receive a lump-sum permanent partial disability award from her employer, which limited her ability to reopen her workers' compensation claim unless she developed new injuries or a change in circumstance.  After accepting this award, Strong-Puzey was diagnosed with hypoxic encephalopathy, which a neurologist connected to a lack of oxygen during surgery.  Strong-Puzey sought to reopen her claim but the appeals officer denied her request.  Strong-Puzey then sought judicial review in the district court in Carson City.  The district court granted her petition and ordered her claim be reopened.  This is an appeal of the district court decision. ISSUES:  Whether a claimant who has knowledge of a condition--but accepts a lump-sum settlement--can then reopen that claim based on a change of circumstances or newly acquired injury.  Whether the district court erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the appeals officer.

January 13, 2010, Oral Arguments McKinney (Craig) v. Martinez (Rick), Docket No. 49172 Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons This is a dispute over an agreement for an employee to purchase a pickup truck from his employer.  Craig McKinney worked for Fire Extinguisher Service Center, which is owned by Rick and Shannon Martinez (collectively, FESC).  While still employed by FESC, McKinney entered into a contract with Rick Martinez to take over the payments on a pickup truck.  After McKinney was fired, he stopped making payments on the truck and FESC eventually sold the truck.  McKinney sued FESC, alleging several claims.  With respect to the truck transaction, McKinney alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  A jury in Churchill County found in favor of FESC.  After the trial, McKinney made a motion requesting that the court issue judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, based on alleged juror misconduct because of a relationship between the jury foreman and Rick Martinez.   The district court partially granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, directing a verdict for McKinney on the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.  However, the district court denied his motion for a new trial.  Both McKinney and FESC have appealed the district court's post-trial decisions.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in granting McKinney's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict?  Did the district court err in denying McKinney's motion for a new trial?  Builders Insurance Company v. Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, Docket No. 50905 Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons This appeal involves a district court decision to deny judicial review in a workers' compensation matter.  Robert Phillips experienced pain in his hands while working for Fletcher Roofing.  Phillips was laid off by Fletcher and later filed a workers' compensation claim against the employer.  Because Phillips had worked intermittently for Becker General Contractors after being laid off by Fletcher, Fletcher made a motion that Becker be made a party to the matter.  Becker was insured by Builders Insurance Company.  The motion to include Becker was served on Becker but not on its insurance company, Builders.  Becker denied responsibility for Phillips's injury, but did not contact Builders.  After a hearing, an appeals officer ruled that Becker was responsible for Phillips's claim.  Becker still did not contact Builders until the time for judicial review had passed.  Builders filed a motion to have the hearing officer's decision set aside, but it was denied.  Builders then filed a petition for judicial review in the district court in Carson City, but that also was denied.  ISSUE:  Did the district court err in denying the petition for judicial review?  Felton (Stephanie) v. Felton (Steven), Docket No. 51442 Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons This is an appeal of district court decisions on property distribution and spousal support in a Washoe County divorce decree.  When Stephanie Felton and Steven Felton divorced after a 12-year marriage, the district court awarded a livestock business to Steven and the couple's house and interest in a hair salon to Stephanie.  The district court determined that no alimony should be awarded.  Stephanie has appealed the divorce decree.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in its distribution of community property?  Did the district court err in denying spousal support?

January 14, 2010, Oral Arguments

Kelly (Winston) v. State of Nevada,
Docket No. 52017
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

In this case, Winston Kelly is appealing his convictions of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon.  Kelly was arrested in Elko County after a sheriff's deputy found him sleeping in the truck of a missing person.  While being interrogated by law enforcement officers about the missing person's whereabouts, Kelly requested an attorney, but no action was taken on his request.  The law enforcement officers also made numerous religious references during the interrogation, including asking Kelly if he thought God would forgive him.  Kelly eventually confessed to stabbing the victim to death and drew a map that led to the victim's body.  Before trial, Kelly made a motion to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation and all evidence obtained as a result of those statements, including the map and the victim's body.  The district court determined that Kelly's confession and the map were inadmissible at trial because law enforcement violated Kelly's Miranda rights, but evidence of the victim's body was admissible because under the totality of the circumstances, Kelly's confession was voluntary.  ISSUE:  Did the district court err in denying Kelly's motion to suppress evidence of the victim's body? 

Ritter (Matthew) v. State of Nevada Supreme Court,
Docket No. 52753
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Matthew Ritter is appealing his conviction in Elko County for trafficking in methamphetamine.  After Ritter was transported to jail in a police patrol car on an outstanding warrant, a police officer found almost 398 grams of methamphetamine under the front passenger seat of the patrol car.  Ritter was charged with trafficking.  At trial, the State presented evidence that no other person was transported in the patrol car between the time Ritter was taken to jail on the outstanding warrant and when the officer found the methamphetamine.  ISSUES:  Does sufficient evidence support Ritter's conviction?  Did the district court properly admit evidence of Ritter's prior methamphetamine-related convictions?

via Scotusblog:

Mon., Jan. 11:

Alabama v. North Carolina (132 Original) -- interstate dispute over enforcement of regional pact on disposal of radioactive wastes; responses to Special Master's report

Briscoe v. Virginia (07-11191) -- scope of crime lab analysts' role in a criminal trial; sequel to Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, on Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights

Tue., Jan. 12:

U.S. v. Comstock (08-1224) -- constitutionality of prolonged imprisonment of sex offenders after sentences completed

Abbott v. Abbott (08-645) -- parents' rights under Hague Convention on child custody

Wed., Jan. 13:

American Needle v. National Football League (08-661) -- antitrust liability of pro sports leagues for joint commercial activity

Jerman v. Carlisle (08-1200) -- legal error as an excuse for violation of debt collection law

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear en banc arguments in Carson City on Tuesday, January 5.

Brebbia (John) v. Dist. Ct./Irsfeld (Hannah) v. Dist. Ct.,

Docket Nos. 53595/53487

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

This case involves the application of the attorney-client privilege.  In an original  petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, attorneys are challenging district court orders requiring them to answer all deposition questions regarding their representation of former clients.  In the underlying case, Donald Allen sold his corporation, OHI, to Frontier Partners, but remained in his position as president of the corporation.  Allen then retained attorney Hannah Irsfeld to perform corporate work for OHI and to file a lawsuit against Frontier Partners and others on behalf of Allen and OHI for breach of contract and other claims.  In the litigation, Frontier sought to depose Irsfeld and another attorney, John Brebbia, claiming that OHI's new management waived any attorney-client privilege between Allen, OHI, and the attorneys.  Irsfeld, Brebbia, and Allen contend that all of their communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege.  After the district court in Clark County directed the attorneys to answer all deposition questions about their representation, the attorneys filed these writ petitions in the Supreme Court.  ISSUE:  Did the district court properly direct the attorneys to answer the deposition questions regarding their representation of Allen and OHI? 

American Sterling Bank v. Johnny Management,

Docket No. 52822

Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Full court

This appeal concerns the priority of lien positions among different mortgage loan lenders for a single piece of property.  In May 2005, Jamal El Jwaidi and Kamila Zakoscielna purchased a home in Las Vegas with two loans from Steward Financial.  The first was for $2 million and received a first priority lien position, while the second was for $500,000 and received a second priority lien position.  In September 2005, the borrowers obtained a third loan, for $650,000, from Johnny Management LV, Inc.  The Johnny loan received a third priority lien position against the property.  Shortly before closing the Johnny loan, the borrowers initiated escrow to obtain a loan with American Sterling Bank for $805,000.  The American Sterling loan was intended to pay off the second Steward loan and to pay for other projects.  American Sterling intended to take the second priority lien position occupied by the second Steward loan and was unaware of the Johnny loan, which was recorded shortly before the American Sterling loan closed.  The Borrowers subsequently defaulted on the Johnny loan and Johnny recorded a notice of default and gave notice of its intention to sell the property.  American Sterling filed a motion in the district court requesting that the court stop the sale and declare American Sterling to have a second priority lien position in front of Johnny.  The district court denied the request to move American Sterling's lien position, but stopped the foreclosure sale pending the outcome of an appeal.  ISSUE:  Did the district court correctly determine the lien positions of the lenders? 

Marvin (Charles) v. State Board of Equalization,

Docket No. 52447

Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full court (Justice Pickering has voluntarily recused herself)

This appeal concerns whether the members of the State Board of Equalization have absolute immunity from a civil rights lawsuit.  In the underlying case, taxpayers appealed a decision of the Washoe County Board of Equalization on their assessed property values to the State Board of Equalization.  The State Board refused to equalize the property tax values in the manner the taxpayers requested.  The taxpayers subsequently filed a lawsuit against the State Board and its members, claiming that their civil rights were violated by the refusal to equalize the taxable value of their properties as requested.  The State Board and its members filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that absolute immunity bars the civil rights claims.  The district court granted the motion and dismissed the civil rights claims, and the taxpayers have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.  ISSUE:  Are the State Board and its members entitled to absolute immunity from this civil rights lawsuit?

The Nevada Supreme Court will hold en banc oral arguments on Monday, January 4 in Carson City.

Betsinger (Steven) v. D.R. Horton, Inc.,

Docket No. 50510

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

This case involves allegations of fraud and deceptive trade practices with respect to a deposit that was not returned when a mortgage loan was canceled.  In March 2003, Steve Betsinger signed a purchase contract with DHI Mortgage for a home in Las Vegas and paid an earnest deposit of $4,900.  When the parties disagreed about the applicable interest rate on the loan, Betsinger canceled the purchase contract.  The deposit was not returned.  Although the purchase contract provided that the earnest money would not be returned in the event of a cancellation, Betsinger testified that three DHI employees informed him that it would be returned.  Betsinger sued DHI and some of its employees for fraud and deceptive trade practices.  A jury awarded Betsinger approximately $58,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. The district court later reduced the punitive damages to $300,000 pursuant to NRS 42.005, which caps the amount of punitive damages.  Both Betsinger and DHI have appealed the judgment.  ISSUES:  Is the cap on punitive damages constitutional?  Was it proper to award moving expenses to Betsinger?  Did the district court properly instruct the jury? 

Humboldt County Public Defender v. Dist. Ct. (Steve Cochran,

Docket No. 53460

Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full court

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition challenging the actions of District Judge Richard Wagner in the appointment of defense attorneys for criminal defendants.  Judge Wagner entered an order recusing himself in all cases involving Humboldt County Public Defender Matt Stermitz.  A few days later, Judge Wagner entered a second order removing Stermitz from certain criminal cases and appointing other defense counsel.  During the next few days, Judge Wagner reassigned three criminal cases from Stermitz to Steve Cochran, a Pershing County-based attorney.  Stermitz filed this writ petition, challenging Judge Wagner's orders.  ISSUE:  Were Judge Wagner's orders proper? 

PacifiCare of Nevada v. Griffiths (Alynne),

Docket No. 53789

Carson City - 1:30 p.m. - Full court

This case challenges a district court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration in a medical tort action.  Alynne Griffiths sued her health care provider, PacifiCare of Nevada, after she contracted Hepatitis C following treatment in a clinic recommended by PacifiCare.  PacifiCare filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the district court in Clark County denied. PacifiCare is now appealing that decision. ISSUE:  Did the district court properly deny the motion to compel arbitration?

The Northern Panel of the Nevada Supreme Court (Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons) will hold oral arguments on Wednesday and Thursday this week in Las Vegas:

ETT, Inc. v. Delgado (Juan), Wednesday 10:00 a.m.

Docket No. 46901

This is an appeal of district court decisions in a multimillion-dollar wrongful death case.  Darwin Ellison, a temporary employee (provided by Labor Express) of ETT, Inc., was driving a company truck on work-related business without a valid driver's license and while intoxicated when he struck and killed Rosa Delgado.  Juan Delgado, on behalf of Rosa's estate, filed a wrongful death action against ETT, Labor Express, and Ellison.  After a trial in Clark County, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Delgado and awarded more than $4 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. The jury apportioned fault at 75 percent to ETT and 25 percent to Ellison.   ETT subsequently filed a motion requesting, among other things, a new trial and a reduction in the punitive damages award.  The district court granted the motion to reduce punitive damages, and reduced the punitive damages to $4,183,250.50, but denied all other requests, including the motion for new trial. The district court also dismissed Delgado's claims against Labor Express.  ETT and Delgado have both appealed the amended order and judgment.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying ETT's motion?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by reducing the jury's award of punitive damages? 

ESP Wireless Technologies, Inc. v. Fingl (Karen) Wednesday 10:30 a.m.,

Docket Nos. 50672/50835

This appeal involves a dispute over an employment contract and the awarding of attorney fees and costs after a trial.  Karen Fingl was employed by ESP Wireless Technologies.  As a condition of her employment, Fingl entered into a non-disclosure and non-competition agreement.  After three years of employment with ESP, Fingl was fired.  She then obtained employment with Anderson Communications, a competitor of ESP.  ESP and its president, Robert Barcal, sued Fingl and Anderson for breach of contract and numerous other claims.  A Clark County jury found neither party was liable.  However, the jury found that the non-competition provision of the agreement between ESP and Fingl was unenforceable because ESP had failed to demonstrate that Fingl's employment was terminated for a commercially reasonable reason.  Based on the jury's finding, the district court awarded Fingl attorney fees and costs, but in an amount less than requested by Fingl.  These fees and costs were enforceable against ESP only, not Barcal.  ESP, Barcal, and Fingl have all appealed the court's judgment.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in its rulings on the attorney fees and costs?  Was the jury's verdict supported by substantial evidence? 

Bowser (Terrence) v. State of Nevada, Wednesday 11:30 a.m. 

Docket No. 50851

In this case, Terrence Bowser is appealing his conviction for a variety of crimes, including first-degree murder.  Evidence indicated that Bowser was driving when his passenger, Jamar Green, fired his gun at the victim's car, resulting in the victim's death.  Bowser was convicted in Clark County of one count each of conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, conspiracy to discharge a firearm out of a motor vehicle, discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle, conspiracy to discharge a firearm at or into a structure or vehicle, and discharging a firearm at or into a structure or vehicle.  Bowser was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 40 years.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting Bowser's statements to police when he had previously invoked his Miranda rights?  Did the State engage in prosecutorial misconduct?  Did the district court abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings? 

Gonzales (Luis) v. State of Nevada, Wednesday 1:30 p.m. 

Docket No. 51243

 

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - Carson City, Full Court

Hamilton (Tamir) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty)             Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court In this case, Tamir Hamilton is appealing his conviction by a Washoe County jury of sexual assault and first-degree murder, and his sentence of death.  The charges arose from the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in her home in Sparks.  During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to remove the only two African Americans on the jury panel.  Hamilton objected and argued that the removal of the two jurors violated Batson v. Kentucky.  The district court denied Hamilton's objection, concluding that the State articulated race-neutral reasons for exercising the challenges.  At his trial, Hamilton presented an insanity defense.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in denying Hamilton's claims pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky?  Did the district court properly rule on evidentiary issues related to Hamilton's insanity defense and properly instruct the jury on insanity?  Washoe Medical Center v. Vanderford (Betty)             Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full court This case arises out of serious permanent injuries that a child suffered after a series of visits to the emergency room of Renown Medical Center in Reno.  Betty Vanderford took her son to Renown's emergency room on three different occasions.  Each time, a different doctor saw the child and either referred him to a different doctor or prescribed antibiotics.  After the child collapsed, he was rushed to the emergency room a fourth time and was diagnosed with meningitis.  The child suffered brain damage, blindness, and severe impairment of his motor skills.  Vanderford sued Renown and the doctors for medical malpractice.  The district court granted partial summary judgment to Vanderford, determining that Renown owed the child a duty to provide competent medical care that could not be delegated to independent contractor doctors, and Renown is therefore liable for the acts of the doctors.  Renown is now appealing the district court's decision.  ISSUES:  Did Renown owe a nondelegable legal duty to provide competent emergency medical care to Vanderford's son?  State of Nevada v. Castaneda (Marty)             Carson City - 1:30 p.m. - Full court   This is an appeal of a district court ruling that Nevada's indecent exposure statute is unconstitutional.  After being observed in front of the Clark County jail lifting his shirt, rubbing his chest, and pulling down his pants to expose his buttocks and genitals, Marty Castaneda was charged with two counts of indecent exposure.  Castaneda sought dismissal of the charges, arguing that the indecent exposure statute, NRS 201.220, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.  The district court granted the motion and the State has appealed that decision.  ISSUE:  Was the district court correct in concluding that NRS 201.220 is vague and overbroad?

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 Carson City - Full Court

Monday, 23 November 2009 08:17

Dozier (Scott) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty)             Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court In this appeal, Scott Dozier is challenging his conviction by a Clark County jury of first-degree murder and robbery, both with the use of a deadly weapon, and his sentence of death.  The charges arose from the shooting death and taking of money from a man in Clark County.  During his trial, the district court denied Dozier's requests to give certain jury instructions, such as an instruction on the elements of voluntary manslaughter.  Dozier has appealed his conviction and has raised numerous issues in the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in instructing the jury during the guilt and penalty phases of the trial?  Did the State commit prosecutorial misconduct?  Posas (Emilia) v. Horton (Nicole)             Carson City - 1:30 p.m. - Full court ISSUES:  Did the district court err in giving a jury instruction regarding a "sudden emergency"?  Should the district court have granted the motion to set aside the judgment?  FACTS:  This case arises out of a traffic collision.  Emilia Posas was driving in Las Vegas, when a woman with a stroller started to cross the street in front of her.  Posas stopped suddenly to avoid hitting the pedestrian.  Nicole Horton, who was driving directly behind Posas, rear-ended Posas's car.  Both vehicles sustained major damage and Posas was transported to a local hospital by ambulance.  Posas brought a tort claim against Horton.  At trial, the jury was instructed regarding when a person "confronted with a sudden emergency" will not be guilty of negligence.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Horton.  After judgment was entered in Horton's favor, Posas made a motion to set aside the judgment based on Horton's expert witness admitting in a different trial that he sometimes lies under oath.  Posas has appealed the judgment and the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment.  Nevada Division of Insurance v. Payroll Solutions Group             Carson City - 2:00 p.m. - Full court This case involves whether the Nevada Division of Insurance may regulate the activities of Payroll Solutions Group.  Payroll is an employee leasing company, which is a company that contracts with client employers to provide administrative services (such as submitting tax documents and providing health care benefits) while the client employer retains operational control over employees (such as hiring and firing).  The Division of Insurance sought to regulate Payroll for operating a multiple employee welfare arrangement (MEWA), because MEWAs are subject to regulation under the state's insurance code.  Payroll argued that it is the "employer" of the leased employees and its employee benefit plan should be considered a single employer plan, subject to regulation exclusively under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and not subject to state regulation.  After an administrative hearing on the matter, the Division found that Payroll was not the employer of the leased employees and was therefore operating a MEWA without a certificate of authority.  The Division imposed fines of over $1 million.  Payroll petitioned for judicial review in the district court in Clark County, which reversed the decision of the Division, finding that Payroll was indeed the "employer" of the leased employees.  The Division is appealing the district court's decision.  ISSUES:  Is Payroll the "employer" of the leased employees?

Xtreme Faith Academy v. Landry (Robin)

            Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Xtreme Faith Academy v. Landry (Robin)

Docket No. 52044

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from district court judgments involving a boarding school in White Pine County.  Xtreme Faith Academy, d.b.a. Abundant Life Academy (ALA), operated an unlicensed boarding school.  Robin Landry was the rural manager of the Division of Child Protective Services (CPS) of the State of Nevada.  After receiving a complaint from a parent who had pulled her child from ALA alleging neglect and abuse, CPS began an investigation into the care ALA provided for its students.  In May 2005, following the conclusion of its investigation, CPS removed all 33 students from ALA's facility.  After a hearing, the district court found that reasonable cause did not exist for the removal of the children.  Subsequently, ALA filed a complaint for damages against CPS claiming bad faith, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional interference with contractual relations, kidnapping, and negligence.  CPS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of ALA's claims, and a motion seeking immunity for Landry.  The district court denied immunity for Landry and dismissed all of ALA's causes of action except for abuse of process.  After a trial, a jury awarded money damages in favor of ALA.   However, the district court capped the damages award at $50,000 pursuant to NRS 41.035.  ALA is appealing the district court's order capping damages.  After the trial CPS filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial.  The district court denied CPS's motion.  CPS is appealing the denial of its motion for new trial.  ISSUES:  Did the district court improperly conclude that CPS and Landry were not entitled to immunity pursuant to NRS 41.032?  Did the district court improperly apply the damages cap contained in NRS 41.035?   Did the district court err in denying CPS's and Landry's motion for summary judgment and motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for new trial? 

Thiede (Cody) v. State of Nevada

            Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Docket No. 50164

In this case, Cody Thiede is appealing his jury conviction in Lincoln County for one count each of sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age, lewdness with a child under 14 years of age, and first-degree kidnapping.  The charges were based on two incidents involving a single victim, S.C.  During the trial, the district judge questioned a nurse regarding the physical examination of the victim and also questioned a sheriff's deputy about conflicting testimony regarding locks on the victim's bedroom door.  Thiede argues that this questioning by the judge improperly elicited testimony that favored the State's case.  Thiede also argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by, among other actions, commenting on Thiede's exercising his right to remain silent and commenting on the victim's demeanor.  ISSUES:  Was the trial judge biased?  Did the prosecutor engage in misconduct warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction?

Thiede (Cody) v. State of Nevada

            Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Docket No. 50603

In this case, Cody Thiede is appealing his conviction by a jury in Lincoln County for two counts of lewdness with a child under 14 years of age.  The charges were based on three incidents involving a single victim, J.J.  Thiede argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for the victim's veracity, inflaming the jurors' passions, and referring to facts not in evidence.  ISSUES:  Did the prosecutor engage in misconduct warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction? 

Madsen (Patrick) v. State of Nevada

            Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Docket No. 51270

In this case, Patrick Madsen is appealing his conviction in Lincoln County on two counts each of sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age and lewdness with a child under 14 years of age.  At the sentencing hearing, a letter from the victim's mother was provided to the court and counsel stating that Madsen should receive the maximum sentence for several reasons, including that he gave the victim a sexually transmitted disease.  Madsen asked the district court to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, arguing that the prosecution withheld the letter, but that motion was denied.  Madsen now appeals his conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial.  ISSUES:   Did the district court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the lewdness counts because the lewdness charges were redundant and duplicative in relation to the sexual assault charges?  Did the district court err in denying appellant's motion to set aside the verdict and for new trial? 

The Nevada Supreme Court provides a live webcast of its oral arguments.  The link appears on the Court's home page shortly before arguments begin.  Audio recordings of arguments are generally available a few hours after the argument.

Via Scotusblog

Tues., Oct. 13:
Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651) -- effect of defense lawyer's wrong advice on consequences of a guilty plea
Smith v. Spisak (08-724) -- unanimity of jury as an issue in finding mitigating evidence in a capital case
South Carolina v. North Carolina (138 Original) -- participation of non-parties in Original cases

Wed., Oct. 14:

Alvarez v. Smith (08-351) -- right to court hearing to challenge forfeiture for a drug crime
Perdue v. Kenny A. (08-970) -- right of attorneys who win a case to receive higher fees

Treasure Island Corp. v. Duhon (Kelli)

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

ISSUES: Should the district court have granted Treasure Island's motion for a directed verdict?  Was it proper for the district court to instruct the jury that Treasure Island could be liable under the "special use" doctrine?

Fernandez (Anthony) v. Fernandez (Jennifer)

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

ISSUE: Did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to modify the child support agreement?

Employers Insurance Company of Nevada v. Employco Services

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

ISSUE: Had the statute of limitations expired by the time EICON filed its lawsuit against Employco?

Humphreys (Mark) v. State

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

This is a case about Mark Humphreys' competency to stand trial.  Humphreys was convicted by a Clark County jury of making terrorist threats and aggravated stalking because of threats and harassing phone calls he made to various employees of the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas.  Humphreys made over 2000 phone calls to various Hard Rock employees between December 2006 and April 2007.  Eventually, Humphreys threatened to kill one employee and to "blow up" the Hard Rock Hotel.  Before his arraignment and also before he was sentenced, Humphreys' competency was evaluated.  Following both evaluations, the district court judge determined that Humphreys was competent.  Humphreys is now appealing his judgment of conviction.  ISSUE: Did the district court correctly determine Humphreys' competency?

 

Diplomat Corp. v. Simon (Marvin)

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

 ISSUES: Did the district court properly interpret the settlement agreement?  Are the Simons responsible for paying for future cleanup?  Is Diplomat entitled to recovery following the Simons' purported civil contempt? 

Easton Business Opportunities, Inc. v. Town Executive Suites

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

 ISSUES: Did Easton have standing to sue Town?  Was Easton entitled to the commission?

Schuster (Donald) v. State

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

This is an appeal of Donald Schuster's conviction by a Clark County jury for second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and battery with the use of a deadly weapon.  In the underlying incident, Schuster and his brother got into a fistfight with four young men.  Schuster retrieved a gun and eventually fired it at the other men.  The first shot hit one man in the chest, which resulted in his death.  A second shot hit another man in the legs.  During his trial, Schuster requested that the district court give a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter.  That motion was denied and Schuster is now appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES: Did the district court err in refusing to give a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter? 

Saylor (Jack) v. Arcotta (Karen)

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

ISSUE: Did the district court err in dismissing Saylor's third-party complaint against the doctors? 

Cromer (Aaron) v. Wilson (William)

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

Should Wilson have been allowed to argue that Cromer was partially at fault?  Could the jury properly find against Cromer's wife when it had found in Cromer's favor?  Was Cromer entitled to attorney fees and prejudgment interest?  

Via Scotusblog:

Mon., Oct. 5:

• Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680) -- limits on police questioning after a suspect asks for a lawyer
• Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter (08-678)) -- right to appeal compelled disclosure of attorney-client communications

Tues., Oct. 6:

• United States v. Stevens (08-769) -- government power to criminalize videos and other depictions of animal cruelty
• Johnson v. U.S.(08-6925) -- battery as a "violent felony" for sentence enhancement
• Bloate v. U.S. (08-728) -- calculation of time of pre-trial stages under federal Speedy Trial Act

Wed., Oct. 7:

• Salazar v. Buono (08-472) -- right to sue to challenge a religious symbol on public lands
• Reed Elsevier, et al., v. Muchnick, et al. (08-103) -- federal court power to approve settlement of a copyright dispute
• Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region (08-604) -- scope of federal court review of arbitration in railroad and airline industries

Tiffany B. v. Slay (Ronald)

            Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

Rico-Arreola (Oscar) v. State

            Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Full court

Madison Equities v. Hamika (Jerry)

            Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Full court

 

Tiffany B. v. Slay (Ronald),

Docket No. 50419

Tiffany B. filed a lawsuit against polygraph examiner Ronald Slay, alleging negligence and various intentional torts.  During an earlier divorce and child custody case between Tiffany and her ex-husband, Malakai K., Tiffany alleged that her minor daughter, G.B., reported sexual abuse by Malakai.  Because Malakai had passed a prior polygraph examination regarding similar allegations by G.B., the district court judge asked Tiffany to take a polygraph examination to assess her credibility in making the allegations.  Slay was appointed to administer Tiffany's polygraph examination.  Slay accepted the appointment but did not disclose that he had administered Malakai's prior polygraph examination.  Slay determined that Tiffany's answers during her polygraph examination were deceptive.  As a result of her failed examination and a psychological assessment relying in part on the results of the examination, Tiffany lost physical custody of G.B. for more than a year.  After G.B. continued to report abuse by Malakai, further assessments and polygraph examinations (administered by examiners other than Slay) were completed and Tiffany was eventually awarded sole custody of G.B.  In the lawsuit against Slay, Tiffany claimed that Slay's prior examination of Malakai disqualified Slay from examining her, even if he had disclosed the conflict.  Tiffany also contended that Slay's examination of her was negligent and that providing her results to a third party after the family court proceeding without her permission violated NRS 648.197.  Slay moved to dismiss Tiffany's lawsuit on the basis that he is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.  The district court granted Slay's motion, and Tiffany now appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit.  ISSUES: Is a polygraph examiner entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity?  Does quasi-judicial immunity apply in instances of intentional torts?  (Disclaimer:  This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

Rico-Arreola (Oscar) v. State,

Docket No. 49512

Oscar Rico-Arreola was convicted by a Clark County jury of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14.  The district court sentenced Rico-Arreola to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years.  During jury selection, the State exercised peremptory challenges with respect to two African-American jurors.  Rico-Arreola made a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing that the State engaged in discrimination in dismissing the two jurors.  The State responded that it excused the jurors because they were social workers and social workers were often not as favorable to the State in criminal cases.  Rico-Arreola is now appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Did the State violate the law established in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky when it dismissed the prospective jurors?  (Disclaimer:  This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

Madison Equities v. Hamika (Jerry),

Docket No. 50316

This case involves a dispute over a lease extension for a convenience store at a shopping center in Clark County, specifically whether Madison Equities had a duty to respond to Jerry Hamika's premature notice to extend the lease. 

Alvarez v. Smith - Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property. Argument scheduled for 10/14/09

Beard v. Kindler.  Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?Argument scheduled for 11/2/09.

Black v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.

Bloate v. United States -  Whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. Argument scheduled for 10/6/09.

Briscoe v. Virginia - If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?

Florida v. Powell - Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?  

Graham v. Florida - Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile's commission of non-homicide.Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

Hemi Group v. New York City - Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non payment of taxes by non litigant third parties. Argument scheduled for 11/3/09

Johnson v. United States - Whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a "violent felony," even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.  Argument scheduled for 10/6/09  

Maryland v. Shatzer - Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later. Argument scheduled for 10/5/09 

McDaniel v. Brown - Nevada case - Whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant's conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia (1979).  Argument taken off calendar.

Padilla v. Kentucky - Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09  

Pottawattamie County v. McGhee - Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant's "substantive due process" rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

Smith v. Spisak - Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland [re: mitigation jury instructions in a capital case]? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09

Sullivan v. Florida - Does imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children?  Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

United States v. Comstock - Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

United States v. Stevens - Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Argument scheduled for 10/6/09

Weyhrauch v. United States - Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.

Wood v. Allen - Whether the state court's conclusion-that during the sentencing phase of a capital case the defense attorney's failure to present the defendant's impaired mental functioning did not constitute ineffective counsel-was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and whether the circuit court erred in its application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to the review of the state court decision.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

September 10, 2009, Oral Arguments

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

            Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Michael Hohl Valucar v. Coachmen R.V. Co.

            Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Nevada Land and Resource Company v. Prize Energy Solutions

            Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Hudler v. Anderson, Real Estate Division Administrator

            Carson City - 1:30 p.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

Glenbrook Club v. Match Point Properties

            Carson City - 2:00 p.m. - Justices Hardesty, Cherry, and Saitta

A synopsis of each of these cases is available here.

September 11, 2009, Oral Arguments

Bodden (Karen) v. State

            Sparks High School - 9:50 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

In 2008, Bodden was convicted by a Douglas County jury of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon for the 2006 shooting death of her husband, Rob, and was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.  Bodden filed a motion for a new trial in district court, claiming her home was searched through a faulty search warrant and evidence obtained should have been suppressed.  She also contended that testimony involving DNA should not have been allowed.  The district court denied her motion.  Bodden is appealing both her conviction and the denial of her motion for new trial.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of search warrants executed at Bodden's residence?  Did the district court err in admitting testimony regarding the DNA profile of certain hair samples?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict?

IGT v. Wild Game NG, LLC (doing business as The Siena Hotel Spa and Casino)

            Sparks High School - 11:20 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

A synopsis of IGT is available here.

 

The Nevada Supreme will return another $2.5 million to the State General Fund.

Justice Saitta has been chosen for a fellowship as one of 40 emerging state leaders.

The Indigent Defense Commission will meet today from 10 to 2 at the Nevada Supreme Court chambers in Las Vegas and Carson City.

On Friday, the Nevada Supreme Court denied OJ Simpson's motion for bail pending appeal.

Chris Owens will now be the Assistant District Attorney for the Criminal Division.  Former ADA Christopher Lalli will rejoin the Major Violators Unit.

Scotusblog previews a Nevada case that will be heard by the United States Supreme Court this fall: McDaniel v. Brown.

In a couple of weeks there will be another shuffling of cases among some of the criminal judges in the 8th Judicial District.  Judges Bell and Silver will now handle criminal and civil cases.  Judge Mosley will be assigned fewer criminal cases and will now handle all misdemeanor appeals and foreclosure mediation appeals.  Some criminal cases will also be transferred from Judge Hardcastle.  Notices should be sent approximately one week prior to any court dates.

Audio recordings are available for this week's oral arguments before the Nevada Supreme Court.

Gentile (Michael) V. Madan (S.K.), Docket No. 49720, Consolidated With 49747, 49749, 49753	Monday, August 31, 2009 (10:00 AM - 10:30 AM)
State V. Dist. Ct. (Krolicki), Docket No. 53902	Monday, August 31, 2009 (10:30 AM - 11:00 AM)
Paine (Frederick) V. State (Death Penalty), Docket No. 50460	Monday, August 31, 2009 (11:00 AM - 11:30 AM)
In Re: Parental Rights As To N.J., Docket No. 51125	Monday, August 31, 2009 (1:30 PM - 2:00 PM)
Richards (Garth) V. Allison, MacKenzie, Russell, Docket No. 51126	Monday, August 31, 2009 (2:00 PM - 2:30 PM)
Ramirez (Felicia) V. State, Docket No. 46417	Tuesday, September 01, 2009 (10:00 AM - 10:30 AM)
John (Greg) V. Douglas Co. School Dist., Docket No. 48101	Tuesday, September 01, 2009 (10:30 AM - 11:30 AM)
Wesley (Herbert) V. State (Death Penalty), Docket No. 48991	Tuesday, September 01, 2009 (11:30 PM - 12:00 AM)

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear oral argument at 10 a.m. on O.J. Simpson's motion for bail pending appeal.  The webcast is available here.  The motion and the State's opposition are available here.

Upcoming Oral Arguments

• 47497- Moxley (John) vs. State
  June 08 (10:00 AM)
  
  
• 49461 - Forrest Trust vs. Fidelity Title C/W 48725
  June 08 (10:30 AM)
  
  
• 51216 - Coe vs. Centeno-Alvares
  June 08 (11:30 AM)
  
  
• 51942 - Monarch Estates vs. Dist. Ct. (Johnson Communities) C/W
  June 08 (2:00 PM)
  
  
• 50761 - City of N. Las Vegas vs. State, Local Gov. Employee - MGMT. Relations BD.
  June 09 (10:00 AM)
  
  
• 51308 - Hopkins (Jentrice) vs. State
  June 09 (10:30 AM)
  
  
• 51428 - IN RE: Parental Rights As To Griego
  June 09 (11:30 AM)
  
  
• 51162 - Thompson (Luqris) vs. State
  June 09 (1:30 PM)

These are the issues on the criminal cases:

Moxley - John Moxley was convicted by a Clark County jury of first-degree murder for the death of his infant son, who suffered severe brain injury as a result of violent shaking. This was Moxley's second trial and second conviction on this charge. Moxley's conviction at his first trial was reversed by the supreme court in a prior appeal. During Moxley's second trial, the district court allowed the testimony from a witness in the first trial to be read to the jury because the witness, who was in a Nevada prison, was deemed unavailable for trial. The district court also admitted evidence regarding prior instances of domestic violence by Moxley. ISSUES: Was Moxley's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him violated when the prior testimony was read to the jury? Was it proper for the district court to allow testimony regarding prior instances of domestic violence?

Hopkins - Jentrice Hopkins is appealing her conviction for burglary and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon following the theft of clothing from a discount store. Hopkins was observed in the store removing security tags from clothes and putting the clothes in her purse and down her pants. When she and her co-defendant left the store without paying for the items, an undercover loss prevention officer who had been watching her demanded that she return the clothes. Hopkins' companion allegedly threatened the loss prevention officer with a knife. As they were leaving in a car, the companion allegedly pointed a gun at the loss prevention officer. After a three-day trial, a Clark County jury convicted Hopkins of burglary and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. Hopkins is appealing her convictions. ISSUES: (1) whether the district court erred by giving a flight jury instruction, (2) whether the district court erred by refusing to give Hopkins' "mere presence" jury instruction, (3) whether the prosecutor misstated the burden of proof in his opening statement, (4) whether the district court erred by denying Hopkins' motion to strike her co-defendant as a witness and her motion for a continuance, (5) whether the district court erred by improperly admitting prior bad act evidence, and (6) whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon.  

Thompson - After Renee Coppola parked her car at her home, two men forced her back inside her car and tried to drive off, but the car wouldn't start and Coppola was able to escape. Coppola identified Luqris Thompson in a photographic lineup as one of her assailants. Thompson originally was charged by way of a criminal complaint; after a grand jury indicted Thompson, the State moved to dismiss the criminal complaint and its motion was granted. Thompson then moved to dismiss the remaining case, arguing that the State was no longer permitted to prosecute him pursuant to Nevada law. The district court denied Thompson's motion to dismiss and a Clark County jury eventually convicted Thompson of conspiracy to commit a crime, burglary, robbery, first-degree kidnapping, and attempted grand larceny auto. Thompson is appealing his conviction. ISSUE: Should the district court have granted Thompson's motion to dismiss? 

Upcoming Oral Arguments - The June 1st and 2nd arguments are en banc and will be held in Carson City

• 49207 - Bahena vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  June 01 (10:00 AM)
  
  
• 49718 - Great Basin Water Network vs. State Engineer
  June 01 (10:30 AM)
  
  
• 51170 - Webb vs. Clark Co. School Dist.
  June 01 (11:30 AM)
  
  
• 50786 - Zana (Mark) vs. State
  June 01 (1:30 PM)
  
  
• 51956 - Foley vs. Dist. Ct. (Ahmad)
  June 01 (2:00 PM)
  
  
• 50739 - Abas vs. Board of Review
  June 02 (10:00 AM)
  
  
• 50092 - W.W. Johnson Dev. vs. City of Reno
  June 02 (10:30 AM)
  
  
• 51697 - Reno Newspapers vs. Haley
  June 02 (11:30 AM)
  
  
• 52477 - State vs. Dist. Ct. (Logan D., A Minor)
  June 02 (1:30 PM)
  
  
  

48291 Rodriguez (Pedro) vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
May 04 (9:30 AM)
Carson City

Full Court

Rodriguez was originally convicted in Washoe County of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. In an earlier appeal of his conviction, this court invalidated one aggravating circumstance (home invasion) but upheld Rodriguez's death sentence after reweighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Rodriguez thereafter filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. ISSUES: Should Rodriguez's death sentence be reversed based on claims that (1) the aggravating circumstances are invalid, (2) the assistance of trial or appellate counsel was ineffective, and (3) jury instructions were improper?

49350 State, Dep't Of Motor Vehicles vs. Junge
May 04 (10:30 AM) -

Carson City

Full Court

After respondent Junge obtained and renewed for several years a personalized license plate "HOE" (shorthand for "Tahoe" according to Junge) the DMV recalled the license plate because DMV's Special Plate Committee determined, after consulting the Urban Dictionary, that the plate carried a meaning that was inappropriate and offensive. An administrative law judge upheld DMV's decision, and Junge petitioned for judicial review. The district court reversed the administrative law judge's decision, and DMV has appealed that decision. The ACLU has filed an amicus brief opposing DMV's position. ISSUE: Do DMV regulations regarding personalized plates violate the First Amendment?

50218 Wyman (Catherine) vs. State
May 04 (12:30 PM)

Carson City

Full Court

This is an appeal of a Washoe County jury verdict convicting Wyman of second-degree murder. Wyman made a request in the district court for a certificate of materiality to obtain evidence from outside of Nevada (specifically, from California) regarding the mental health history of the State's key witness, Wyman's adult daughter. The district court denied the request. ISSUE: Did the district court err in denying Wyman's request for a certificate of materiality with respect to the out-of-state documentary evidence?

50298 Bower vs. Harrah's Laughlin C/W 49783
May 04 (1:00 PM)

Carson City

Full Court

These consolidated appeals arise from a fight and shooting between two biker gangs that occurred at Harrah's Laughlin. Appellants allege they were not part of the fight but were injured as a result of the fight. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Harrah's based on the issues arising from the fight and shooting having been resolved in two prior court cases over the same incident. Appellants were not parties to the prior court cases, but discovery for their cases was consolidated with those two cases. ISSUES: Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Harrah's? Did the district court err in awarding attorney fees and costs to Harrah's?

52055 In Re: Parental Rights As To Germany
May 04 (2:30 PM)

Carson City

Full Court

In connection with an adoption plan, a biological mother, who is a member of the Cherokee Nation Tribe, relinquished her parental rights to the child at issue in this matter. Later, the adoption agency petitioned to terminate the parental rights of any putative father. The Cherokee Nation Tribe moved to intervene to invalidate and dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the case should be transferred to the tribal court because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and the mother did not have standing to object to the transfer. The district court's denial of that motion is the subject of this appeal. ISSUE: Did the district court have subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act, to relinquish the parental rights of any putative father?

 

49602 Fierle vs. Perez
May 05 (9:00 AM)

Carson City

Full Court

After Fierle suffered chemical burns from a chemotherapy treatment, she and her husband brought a medical tort action. The district court dismissed the complaint based on the couple's failure to submit a medical expert's affidavit along with the complaint, which is required by NRS 41A.071. The district court also denied the couple's motion for relief from the judgment. ISSUE: Did the district court err in dismissing the complaint and in denying the motion for relief from judgment?

50457 Middleton (David) vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
May 05 (9:30 AM)

Middleton was previously convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, one count of grand larceny, one count of fraudulent use of a credit card, and two counts of ex-felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to death. In an appeal of his judgment of conviction, Middleton's judgment and sentence were upheld. Middleton filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Washoe County district court, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. ISSUES: Did the district court err in dismissing several claims in the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing? Were trial and appellate counsel ineffective? Is reversal of Middleton's death sentence required by McConnell v. State?

50859 Bielar vs. Washoe Health Systems, Inc.

May 05 (10:30 AM)

Carson City

Full Court

Bielar, who did not have health insurance or qualify for public assistance, was in an automobile accident. Bielar ultimately received a $1.3 million settlement from an insurance company. While the hospital placed a lien on the settlement, the insurer paid Bielar directly. Bielar paid the hospital in full but filed a suit in district court asserting that she was entitled to a 30 percent reduction in her bills pursuant to NRS 439B.260, which provides for the reduction of hospital bills under certain circumstances, including when the patient does not have health insurance or qualify for public assistance. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis that Bielar lacked standing to pursue the claim for reduction in the bill and the district court granted the hospital's motion. ISSUE: Did the district court err in finding that Bielar lacked standing and granting summary judgment to the hospital?

50065 KING (DAVID) vs. STATE
May 07 (9:00 AM)

Elko High School
Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This is an appeal from an Elko County district court order denying a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. King was convicted of first-degree murder by means of child abuse for the death of his infant son. The motion for a new trial was based on evidence that surfaced after trial indicating the infant victim may have vomited near the time of his death, leading a forensic expert to suggest that a cause of death could not be determined and that the victim could have died of natural causes.

51971 Ortega (Jose) vs. State
May 07 (9:30 AM)

Elko High School
Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This is an appeal of Ortega's conviction in Elko County of principal to trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). Ortega is also appealing an Elko County district court order denying a motion for new trial. Ortega was arrested after being stopped by a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper and warned to slow down and dim his headlights. During the stop, Ortega consented to a search of his vehicle where the NHP trooper discovered cocaine. After arresting the occupants of the car, the NHP trooper opened an airbag compartment with a screwdriver and discovered the methamphetamine. ISSUES: Did the use of a screwdriver to open the airbag compartment exceed the scope of the consent to search given by Ortega? Should Ortega have been convicted of being a principal to trafficking despite the jurors' belief that he did not know what drug was involved?

Oral arguments in two cases are scheduled before the Nevada Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 9 in the Court's Las Vegas courtroom on the 17th floor of the Regional Justice Center. Justices Parraguirre, Douglas, and Pickering presiding.

10:30 a.m. - Manuel D. Orellana vs. State of Nevada
This is an appeal from a Clark County conviction of four counts of lewdness with a child under 14 years of age.

11:30 a.m. - Rodolfo Varela vs. State of Nevada
In this appeal, Varela is contesting his conviction in Clark County on a charge of battery by a prisoner because he was not confined to jail or prison at the time of the incident.

Webcast is not available due to technical issues.

Wednesday, April 8th 2009 - Las Vegas

• 10:00 a.m. VILLALOBOS (GONZALO) VS. STATE
• 10:30 a.m. LEEDS (ROBERT) VS. STATE
• 11:30 a.m. SARFATY V. DIST. CT. (CITY OF HENDERSON)

Webcast of the arguments is available here.

VILLALOBOS (GONZALO) VS. STATE, Docket No. 48079

April 8th, 2009 10:00 AM 30 min - Las Vegas Courtroom Justices Parraguire, Douglas, and Pickering

This is an appeal of Villalobos' conviction in Clark County on one count of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, five counts of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and five counts of discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle. ISSUES: Did the district court err in admitting Villalobos' statement at trial that he had given to police, after allegedly invoking his right to counsel? Did the district court err in admitting evidence of a prior instance of violence involving appellant?

LEEDS (ROBERT) VS. STATE, Docket No. 48503

April 8th, 2009 10:30 AM 30 min - Las Vegas Courtroom Justices Parraguire, Douglas, and Pickering

Leeds is appealing his conviction in Clark County on charges of murdering his ex-wife's boyfriend and attempting to murder his ex-wife. Charges include one count each of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. ISSUES: Did the district court err by admitting of certain evidence during trial? Did the district court err in its instructions to the jury? Did the State provide sufficient evidence to support the convictions? SARFATY V. DIST. CT. (CITY OF HENDERSON), Docket No. 51915 April 8th, 2009 11:30 AM 30 min - Las Vegas Courtroom Justices Parraguire, Douglas, and Pickering This petition for a writ of mandamus involves Sarfaty's criminal conviction in Henderson Municipal Court for battery constituting domestic violence. The petition challenges a Clark County district court order denying Sarfaty's appeal of his misdemeanor conviction. In the underlying incident, an altercation between Sarfaty and his wife resulted in police being called. An officer took her statement and arrested Sarfaty on a charge of battery constituting domestic violence. At trial, the wife indicated she could not remember the accusations she made on the night of the incident and gave inconsistent testimony. Nevertheless, petitioner was convicted by the municipal court judge based on corroborating evidence. ISSUE: Can a conviction for domestic violence be sustained when the victim recants at trial, absent corroborating evidence?

The Nevada Supreme Court has announced that it will begin webcasting all oral arguments over its website.  The first oral arguments to be webcast will be held on March 2nd.  The Court will also provide a synopses of the case and issues to be presented.

Monday, February 2, 2009

51941 GLOVER (SHAWN) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

It appears that this is a writ proceeding concerning a claim of double jeopardy premised upon a mistrial that was declared by the district court during closing arguments.

49059 HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. VS. TRUSTEES OF CONSTR. INDUS. (NRAP 5)
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

49445 MGM MIRAGE VS. NEV. INSURANCE GUARANTY ASS'N
10:00 AM 60 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

49884 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FACKETT
11:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

48535 SHELKSOHN VS. YEH
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

Oral argument audio files are available for arguments held before the Nevada Supreme Court on January 6 and 7.  Criminal cases include:

Fields v. State

Rico-Arreolla v. State

Smith v. State

Funderburk v. State

Chavez v. State

Noguera v. State

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

50325 SPRINGMAN (STANLEY) VS. STATE
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

49481 OWENS VS. SANTA BARBARA VILLAGE
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

48590 MILLER (CLIFFORD) VS. STATE
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

48731 WARREN VS. BANCTECH, LLC C/W 48845
1:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

48845 WARREN VS. PARADISE SPA OWNERS ASS'N C/W 48731
1:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

Thursday, January 15, 2009

48939 DOUMANI VS. DOUMANI
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

49377 MOON VS. SIERRA INT'L, INC.
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

50051 DAVESHWAR (SANJIV) VS. STATE
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )

Friday, January 16, 2009

46917 ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. VS. BARRETT
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Hardesty/Cherry/Gibbons )

48676 HAGER VS. MACTEC
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Hardesty/Cherry/Saitta )

47167 KLEIN VS. RAPOPORT
10:00 AM 30 min
Las Vegas Courtroom - 17th Floor
Southern Panel (Hardesty/Parraguirre/Douglas )

48559 TENNESON VS. FOSTER
10:30 AM 30 min
Las Vegas Courtroom - 17th Floor
Southern Panel (Hardesty/Parraguirre/Douglas )

50313 CLARK CO. SCHOOL DIST. VS. VIRTUAL EDUCATION SOFTWARE
11:30 AM 30 min
Las Vegas Courtroom - 17th Floor
Southern Panel (Hardesty/Parraguirre/Douglas )

The Nevada Supreme Court will sit en banc and will hear oral arguments in Carson City on December 1 and 2:

Monday, December 1, 2008

49351 V AND S RAILWAY VS. WHITE PINE COUNTY
2:00 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

50625 REGENCY TOWERS VS. DIST. CT. (LAS VEGAS INT'L COUNTRY CLUB)
9:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

49396 RIVERA VS. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. (NRAP 5)
11:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

Monday, November 10

US Supreme Court orders released (no new cert grants were ordered)

10:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Chambers v. United States (whether failure to report to prison is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminals Act).

11:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Hayes (whether federal gun laws require a domestic relationship between an attacker and victim to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of "domestic violence").

1:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (whether the Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports for use in prosecution).

 

Tuesday, November 11

Holiday.  Courts closed.

 

Wednesday, November 12

10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Jeffries v. State

11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Courtesy Cars v. Morgan

1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Perez-Marquez v. State

United States Supreme Court oral argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum (whether donated monuments displayed in public parks qualify as private speech, thus requiring municipalities to display monuments from all other donors).

United States Supreme Court oral argument in Bell v. Kelly (whether the deferential standard in the federal habeas corpus statute should be applied to claims a state court did not conisder).

 

 

Thursday, November 13

Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day

10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Anderson v. Ruppco Inc.

10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Madruga v. Aguilar

1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Fields v. State

 

Friday, November 14

10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Ferguson v. Landmark Homes

10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in State Engineer v. Morris Delee Revocable Trust

11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Cadle Co. II vs. Fountain

1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Las Vegas Paving v. Nevada Power