Nevada Supreme Court

The Nevada Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that a temporary restraining order issued with notice is subject to the same 14‑day expiration limit as one issued without notice and that the district court’s indefinite TRO was therefore improper.

For the first time, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a failure-to-appear clause in a guilty plea agreement may not be enforced against a defendant who remains in custody, because the clause's purpose of preventing out-of-custody defendants from absconding is not served and the State retains ultimate control over an…

In an original writ proceeding, the Nevada Supreme Court held that NAC 641.234(3), a Board of Psychological Examiners regulation restricting release of psychological test material, does not supersede a district court's authority to order disclosure of raw psychological test data, including examination questions, in…

The court affirmed judgment on the pleadings for the respondents. It held that the Open Meeting Law requires the Citizen Review Board to include the names of officers whose conduct is under review on public meeting notices and agendas, even when the meetings themselves are closed.

The court held that Nevada's assault statute permits a separate conviction for each person whom the defendant intentionally places in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

The court held that the settlement arose from professional-negligence claims because the alleged ordinary-negligence conduct involved medical providers acting within a professional relationship, so the statutory cap on contingent attorney fees applied.

The court held that the population-based provisions of A.B. 519 were unconstitutional and affirmed summary judgment for Elko County. Section 2 was a local or special law because its narrow population range lacked a rational relationship to the statute’s purpose and effectively targeted Elko County, while Sections 2…

The court held that NRCP 12(g)(2) barred the respondent from raising a statutory-standing defense for the first time in a successive motion to dismiss on remand, although a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge could be raised at any time.

The court held that medical records obtained from an opposing party in discovery may be authenticated under the general authentication provision rather than exclusively through the subpoena procedure for custodians of medical records.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Jessica De Falco's convictions for two counts of attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of battery with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, and duty to stop at the scene of a crash.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the tort judgment, the denial of a new trial, the expert-fee award, and the assignment of the judgment debtors' insurer claims. It held that the Clarks received a meaningful opportunity to present their defense, that deemed admissions were properly withdrawn, and that the evidence…

The court held that a party may use a second petition for judicial review to challenge jurisdictional defects in an earlier proceeding after remand proceedings conclude. It nevertheless vacated the district court's merits ruling because the second petition failed to name the administrative commission as a respondent…

The court held that the district court abused its discretion by deeming an alternative suspect’s prior, substantially similar sexual assault irrelevant and consequently withholding the suspect’s juvenile records.

The court held that, when private counsel represents a paying client under an agreed hourly-fee arrangement, the actual billing rate is a significant and presumptively appropriate measure of the lodestar rate.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Wells Fargo, holding that Freddie Mac's ownership of the loan was protected by the Federal Foreclosure Bar even though Freddie Mac was not the publicly recorded deed-of-trust beneficiary.

The court held that the first deed-of-trust holder's unconditional tender of the amount necessary to satisfy the superpriority portion of an HOA lien cured the default and preserved the deed of trust.

The Nevada Supreme Court answered the certified question affirmatively, holding that NRS 116.31168(1) incorporated NRS 107.090’s notice requirements and therefore required homeowners’ associations to provide foreclosure notices to all holders of subordinate interests, even when they did not request notice, prior to…

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding that Fannie Mae has standing to invoke the Federal Foreclosure Bar, that the Bar implicitly preempts Nevada’s HOA foreclosure statute NRS 116.3116, and that without FHFA consent the foreclosure sale could not extinguish Fannie Mae’s deed of trust.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Ralph Jeremias' convictions and death sentences, holding that the courtroom closure during jury selection was not preserved and did not constitute plain error prejudice, and that all other evidentiary and procedural claims were either harmless or without merit.

The court held that both Nevada quiet title actions and unlawful detainer actions concern interests in real property and therefore are in rem or quasi in rem rather than purely in personam.

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because an order statistically closing a case is not appealable unless authorized by statute or court rule, and the challenged order was not a final judgment.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary‑judgment ruling for Naples Polaris, holding that the written option contract was unambiguous and required Galardi to satisfy the $1.3 million deed‑of‑trust debt rather than passing it to the buyer.

The court affirmed both judgments, holding that cumulative convictions and punishments for attempted murder and the applicable assaultive offenses do not violate double jeopardy or Nevada's redundancy doctrine.

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a party seeking to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program and obtain authorization for nonjudicial foreclosure must be both the beneficiary of the deed of trust and the current holder of the promissory note.

The court affirmed judgment for Precision because Certified failed to prove either an enforceable express or implied-in-fact contract for design-only services and failed to show that Precision received a benefit supporting restitutionary quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.

The Nevada Supreme Court held that compromise offers are inadmissible to prove failure to mitigate damages under NRS 48.105, that NRS 645.251 does not bar common‑law fraud‑by‑concealment claims when the conduct overlaps statutory duties, that it does not preclude respondeat‑superior liability for an employer, that…

The court held that a charging order against an LLC member reaches only the member’s economic interest and does not transfer managerial rights to the judgment creditor. It also held that a lis pendens is available only when the underlying action directly involves title to or possession of real property, not merely an…

The Nevada Supreme Court denied the State's mandamus petition, holding that retrograde extrapolation evidence is relevant to proving both charged DUI theories but may be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

The court affirmed Nunnery’s convictions and death sentence after rejecting his penalty-phase and guilt-phase claims. It held that the district court could accept a late aggravation-evidence notice for good cause, that presentence-investigation information may be admitted at a penalty hearing subject to the trial…

The Nevada Supreme Court held that spitting on another is a battery under NRS 200.481 because it satisfies the statute’s “use of force or violence” requirement, and that the State failed to prove the existence and constitutional validity of Hobbs’ prior domestic‑battery misdemeanor convictions, rendering the felony…

The court held that the policy's earth movement exclusion was ambiguous as applied to foundation damage caused by soil expansion after a ruptured water pipe. Because the exclusion did not clearly encompass that particular loss, it had to be construed against the insurer, and the district court erred in granting…

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the phrase "minimum term of imprisonment prescribed by the applicable penal statute" in NRS 176A.630(5) includes the substantial‑assistance provision of NRS 453.3405(2), allowing the district court to reduce Lucero's sentence below the statutory 10‑year minimum after probation…

The court held that NRCP 4(i), as amended in 2004, requires a party seeking additional time to serve process to first show good cause for filing an untimely motion to enlarge the service period. Only after that threshold showing may the court conduct the complete good-cause analysis for extending service time.

The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the proponents failed to submit enough signatures by the statutory deadline and the election had ended, leaving no effective relief available from the injunction.

The court held that AA Primo's timely post-judgment motion qualified as a motion under NRCP 59(e), tolling the time to appeal and preserving appellate jurisdiction. On the merits, administrative revocation of an LLC's charter suspended its right to transact business but did not prevent it from prosecuting a pending…

The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the pharmacies, holding that they owed no common-law duty to unidentified members of the public injured by a pharmacy customer who drove under the influence of prescription drugs.

The court held that Nevada had home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the children’s absence in Japan was intended to be a temporary vacation and therefore did not interrupt their Nevada residency.

The court withdrew its earlier opinion, denied rehearing, and held that Nevada law governs the classification of a custody arrangement once a party seeks modification. It adopted a 40-percent-per-parent threshold for joint physical custody, required specific factual findings before modifying custody or child support…

The court affirmed Chavez’s convictions and consecutive life sentences, holding that the deceased victim’s preliminary-hearing testimony and testimonial statements to law enforcement were admissible because Chavez had an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination.

The court held that an insurer's duty to defend and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing require it to adequately inform its insured of reasonable settlement opportunities, including offers exceeding policy limits.