Deborah Agosti

This case involved a medical negligence claim brought by James Banks, Jr., who suffered cardiac arrest during rotator cuff surgery at Sunrise Hospital in 1995 and remained in a permanent vegetative state, against the hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist. The surgeon and anesthesiologist settled before trial, after which a jury found the hospital liable and awarded substantial damages that the district court reduced by the settlement amounts. Sunrise appealed, alleging trial errors including issues with evidence handling and jury instructions, while Banks cross-appealed the reduction. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Sunrise had not shown reversible error and that the district court correctly applied the comparative negligence statute to deduct settlements without admitting them to the jury. The decision rested on review of the record showing proper equipment checks, no proven spoliation, and adherence to statutory procedures for multi-defendant tort actions.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case is an appeal from Margaret Rudin's convictions for unauthorized surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device and murder with use of a deadly weapon. Rudin challenged her convictions on grounds including the admission of unreliable expert testimony, multiple instances of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that deprived her of a fair trial, and her trial counsel's inability to prepare adequately. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that all of Rudin's arguments lacked merit. The court reviewed the trial record and applicable legal standards for each claim before concluding that no reversible error occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over an employment contract between Edward Ringle, owner of the Stagecoach Casino and Hotel, and his general manager Alpheus Bruton. After the two-year contract expired in 1994, Bruton continued working without a new written agreement, and in 1996 his employment ended without the required 60 days' notice. Bruton sued for breach of contract, and the jury awarded him damages, which Ringle appealed arguing the contract had expired and he became an at-will employee. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when an employee continues working after a contract expires, the terms of the contract are presumed to continue governing the relationship except for its duration, and substantial evidence supported the damages award. The court also affirmed the denial of a new trial, clarifying that improper closing arguments not properly objected to at trial generally cannot be raised on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves Edward Bennett's second post-conviction petition challenging his 1988 murder conviction and death sentence for fatally shooting a store clerk during an attempted robbery in Las Vegas, with his accomplice wounding a customer. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's partial grant of relief, which vacated the death sentence and ordered a new penalty hearing, while upholding the denial of Bennett's other claims. The court found that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding evidence and that the "at random and without apparent motive" aggravator was invalid, concluding these errors together undermined the reliability of the jury's sentencing decision. It rejected remaining procedural and substantive challenges to the conviction and other aspects of the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned a petition by the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) seeking a writ to block a family court order that required DCFS to disclose the names and addresses of a minor child's siblings' adoptive and natural parents. The child, A.M.S., sought the information through her attorney solely to serve a petition for sibling visitation after her sisters had been adopted or returned to a biological parent following the termination of their mother's parental rights. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the writ petition, holding that DCFS's arguments about the expiration of visitation rights under NRS 125C.050 and NRS 127.171 were unpersuasive because the child was a state ward whose access depended on DCFS action and because earlier family court orders for a visitation plan were presumptively valid. The court further concluded that the family court had jurisdiction to order limited disclosure under exceptions in the confidentiality statutes, NRS 432B.290(1)(e) and (g).

family lawprocedure

In Meyer v. State, appellant Adam Ray Meyer was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual assault and sentenced to a minimum of ten years in prison. On appeal, Meyer challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including juror misconduct involving a juror's independent research into sentencing that was shared with other jurors. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the misconduct constituted prejudicial extrinsic influence on the jury. The court explained that such actions violated instructions against considering external information and clarified the standard of review distinguishing extrinsic from intrinsic jury misconduct in cases of tampering or improper deliberations.

criminal lawprocedure

In Echeverria v. State, the defendant pled guilty to lewdness with a child under fourteen pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State promised to recommend probation if he was eligible and cooperated with immigration authorities. At sentencing, the State instead supported a prison term, which the trial court treated as a breach but found did not influence its decision to impose life with parole eligibility after ten years. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a harmless-error analysis does not apply to the State's breach of a plea agreement and that the case must be remanded for resentencing before a different judge. The court relied on Santobello v. New York and its own precedents requiring automatic reversal and reassignment to protect the integrity of plea agreements and the appearance of justice. A dissent argued that reassignment was unnecessary because the original judge was not influenced by the breach.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a divorced couple where the mother, who had primary physical custody of their child, petitioned under NRS 125C.200 to relocate with the child to New Jersey for improved career prospects, educational opportunities for the child, and proximity to extended family, while the father opposed the move to preserve regular visitation. The district court ruled that NRS 125C.200 violated the Equal Protection Clause by burdening a custodial parent's right to travel and permitted the relocation without court approval. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the statute is constitutional, reasoning that custodial and noncustodial parents are not similarly situated, so equal protection analysis does not apply, and affirmed the district court's alternative conclusion that the move served the child's best interests under the Schwartz factors, including economic benefits, family ties, and feasible visitation arrangements.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved the City of Las Vegas petitioning the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn a district court's ruling that NRS 207.260, which made it a misdemeanor to annoy or molest a minor, was unconstitutionally vague. The underlying prosecution charged James Edward Charles with following and repeatedly asking for a minor. The court denied the petition and upheld the facial invalidation of the statute. It reasoned that the terms were so imprecise that they failed to give ordinary people notice of prohibited conduct and permitted arbitrary enforcement, allowing a facial challenge under due process principles even absent substantial First Amendment issues. The opinion clarified conflicting precedent on when facial vagueness attacks are permissible.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Osburn v. State, police attached an electronic tracking device to the defendant's vehicle without a warrant during a serial rape investigation, later using it alongside visual surveillance to obtain a search warrant that uncovered burglary tools and child pornography, leading to multiple criminal charges. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrant, arguing that the warrantless attachment of the device violated his rights under the Nevada Constitution, but the district court denied the motion and he entered a conditional guilty plea. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial, ruling that the attachment to the exterior of the vehicle did not amount to an unreasonable search or seizure under Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution because the exterior of a vehicle carries no reasonable expectation of privacy and the device did not deprive the owner of dominion or control.

criminal lawprocedure

In Morgan v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant casino for breach of a contract to provide billboard advertising, seeking damages within the limit for mandatory non-binding court-annexed arbitration under Nevada rules. The case was referred to arbitration, which produced an award for the plaintiff, but the defendant requested a trial de novo in district court; after minimal further activity, the district court dismissed the action under NRCP 41(e) for failure to bring it to trial within five years of filing. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the five-year period is not tolled during mandatory arbitration proceedings and that dismissal does not revive the arbitration award for entry as a judgment. The court reasoned that the Nevada Arbitration Rules do not suspend the NRCP 41(e) deadline, plaintiffs bear the duty to diligently prosecute their cases once returned to district court, and no statute or rule provides for revival of the award upon such a dismissal.

procedure

This case involved a petition to the Nevada Supreme Court challenging a district court's 1998 divorce decree between Cisilie Vaile, a Norwegian citizen, and Scotlund Vaile, a U.S. citizen, along with related child custody issues. The couple had lived in multiple countries, and the husband filed for divorce in Nevada claiming residency after obtaining a separation agreement in the UK, though he was not actually residing in Nevada. The court decided that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the divorce decree because the husband's residency claim was false, rendering the decree void. It further held that the wife was not estopped from challenging the decree and that the matter of the children's habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be addressed in appropriate proceedings rather than deferred to the invalid Nevada order.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned a father's challenge to a Nevada district court's order authorizing his 15-year-old daughter's marriage to a 48-year-old man under NRS 122.025, which allows such marriages with the consent of one parent and judicial approval; the father had joint custody but received no notice or opportunity to be heard before the authorization. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutionally applied in this instance because it deprived the father of due process rights to notice and a hearing regarding his parental interests. The court further ruled that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by granting the marriage authorization without identifying extraordinary circumstances or expressly considering the minor's best interests. Accordingly, the court granted the father's petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the authorization order.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over a defaulted loan for a real estate development project, where the lender Lowe sued the borrower Sanctuary and guarantors for breach of contract and related claims, and the defendants demanded a jury trial. Lowe moved to strike the jury demand based on explicit waivers in the loan documents and payment guaranty, which the defendants argued were unenforceable under NRS 40.453 as contrary to public policy for real estate financing documents. The district court denied the motion without addressing the parties' arguments, concluding that the right to a jury trial was too fundamental to be waived contractually. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel enforcement of the waivers. The Nevada Supreme Court granted relief, holding that jury trial waivers in commercial contracts are enforceable when made knowingly and voluntarily by sophisticated parties, that NRS 40.453 does not apply to such procedural waivers, and that strong public policy supports enforcing contractual dispute resolution provisions akin to arbitration or forum selection clauses.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Steven Samuel Braunstein's jury convictions on two counts of sexual assault of a minor under fourteen and two lesser-included counts of lewdness with a child under fourteen, arising from repeated incidents in which he digitally penetrated the vagina of victim J.P. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the sexual assault convictions while striking the lewdness convictions. The court held that evidence of Braunstein's prior molestation of another child was properly admitted to show motive, that any error from failing to hold a formal trustworthiness hearing on the victim's hearsay statements was harmless, that the verdicts were not fatally inconsistent once the lesser counts were removed, and that the evidence including medical findings and witness testimony was sufficient.

criminal lawprocedure

In Foster v. State, the appellant was convicted by a jury of unlawfully selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer after being approached in an area known for drug sales. Foster argued he was entrapped as a matter of law because police lacked reasonable cause to believe he was predisposed to sell drugs, that the jury was improperly instructed on entrapment, and that his prior conviction was wrongly admitted. The court overruled prior precedent requiring reasonable cause for targeting suspects in undercover operations, held that Foster was not entrapped as a matter of law, found the jury instructions proper, and determined the prior conviction evidence was admissible to show predisposition.

criminal lawprocedure

In Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, a divorce case between spouses married over 21 years, the district court denied the wife's request for alimony due to her extramarital affair, leaving the family home, and taking funds from their adult son's settlement, despite the husband's significantly higher income as a catering director compared to her earnings as a school hall monitor. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, ruling that marital misconduct may not be considered in determining alimony awards. The court explained that the 1993 amendment to NRS 125.150 eliminated the prior statutory reference to the 'respective merits of the parties,' removing the basis for the Heim v. Heim dictum and confirming that fault has no role in alimony decisions under the no-fault divorce framework.

family law

The case was a personal injury action in which Sherry Flick sued Kenneth DeJesus for negligence after DeJesus tailgated and forced her vehicle off a Las Vegas freeway, causing injuries; DeJesus stipulated to liability, leaving only damages for trial. The jury awarded Flick $1,470,000, exceeding the amounts requested for certain categories like future medical expenses and pain and suffering. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the denial of a new trial motion, remanding for a new trial on damages. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's attorney's closing argument misconduct, including personal vouching for the cause, injecting his own life experiences and opinions, disparaging defense experts, and inviting the jury to punish defense counsel, sufficiently permeated the proceedings to influence the jury through passion and prejudice under NRCP 59(a).

torts & liabilityprocedure

In English v. State, the appellant challenged the use of his September 1995 misdemeanor conviction for battery constituting domestic violence to enhance his May 1998 conviction to a felony under NRS 200.485, arguing both that pre-January 1, 1998 convictions could not be used for enhancement and that the records did not prove the prior conviction's constitutional validity. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the 1995 conviction could be used along with the February 1998 conviction to enhance the penalty. The court reasoned that the statute's effective-date provision limiting application to offenses committed before January 1, 1998, applies only to the current offense being prosecuted, not to prior convictions, and that legislative history supported using qualifying convictions within the seven-year lookback period. The court further concluded that the documentation presented adequately established the constitutional validity of the 1995 conviction for enhancement purposes.

criminal law

The case involved Thomas Collman, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing three-year-old Damian Stach, the son of his live-in girlfriend. On appeal, Collman challenged various evidentiary and other district court rulings. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, holding that the challenges did not warrant relief and that an erroneous guilt-phase jury instruction equating child abuse with conclusive evidence of malice aforethought was harmless error.

criminal lawprocedure