Cameron McVicar Batjer

The case involved the forfeiture of a 1978 Chevrolet van seized after its owner, Douglas Fischer, was arrested for selling amphetamines from it in Fallon, Nevada. His wife, Shelley Fischer, contested the forfeiture of her co-ownership interest under NRS 453.301, asserting she had no knowledge of or consent to the illegal use. The district court ordered forfeiture of her interest, interpreting the statute to require no actual knowledge or consent by a co-owner and finding her testimony insufficient. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute expressly protects an owner who establishes lack of knowledge or consent, that Shelley Fischer made a prima facie showing which the county failed to rebut, and that forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed against the government. The court remanded for judgment in her favor.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In this case, a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper sued a private citizen for severe injuries sustained when another vehicle crashed into his patrol car while he was assisting at the scene of a trailer accident involving beehives on the interstate. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the fireman's rule barred the officer's tort claim. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that as a matter of law a public safety officer assumes the normal risks of his employment and cannot recover for injuries caused by the very hazard he was called to address. The court reasoned that the rule prevents multiple liability for citizens whose negligence creates dangers that officers are paid and trained to handle, and that the beehives merely created the occasion for the officer's presence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Lorraine Connell sued Patrick Higgins and his employer Carl’s Air Conditioning for damages from an October 1975 automobile collision in which Higgins was driving a hit-and-run vehicle. Higgins died before trial, but his deposition was admitted; at the close of evidence the district court granted Carl’s a directed verdict under NRCP 50(a), ruling that Higgins was not acting in the course and scope of employment because he was driving home with no evidence of any emergency errand or overtime work. The court also denied Connell’s motions to amend the complaint to add a negligent-entrustment theory, finding the requests untimely and the facts insufficient to show Carl’s had control over or entrusted the vehicle to Higgins. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the directed-verdict standard was met and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or find implied consent under NRCP 15 regarding the new claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Best Brands, Inc. suing Nathan Jacobson to enforce a written personal guaranty he signed as president of A.L.W., Inc. (Kings Castle Hotel & Casino) for up to $100,000 in liquor debts; after Kings Castle entered bankruptcy and was later sold, Best Brands received a partial recovery but sought the balance from Jacobson. The district court entered judgment for Best Brands in the amount of $72,627.21 plus fees and costs, rejecting Jacobson's claims that the guaranty lacked mutual assent because it was signed only as a personal favor and that Jenny, Inc. had assumed the obligation. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the written guaranty was enforceable because Jacobson's parol evidence was not clear and convincing enough to overcome the instrument, the trial court's credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the parties had expressly waived interest in the guaranty document itself.

business & regulatory

In Noland v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., a subcontractor's employee sued another subcontractor, Westinghouse, for injuries from an elevator free-fall on a construction site, after receiving workers' compensation benefits under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA). The district court granted summary judgment to Westinghouse, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that under NRS 616.085, subcontractors and their employees are deemed co-employees of the principal contractor, making the NIIA the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. It rejected application of the dual capacity doctrine to allow a separate products liability claim, finding no precedent or basis to strip statutory immunity from a co-employee merely because of its additional role as elevator manufacturer and installer, consistent with prior precedent in Aragonez v. Taylor Steel Co.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned a challenge by the City of Las Vegas to the constitutionality of Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 280, which requires consolidation of county and city law enforcement agencies in any county with a population of 200,000 or more where the city is the county seat. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the City, ruling that NRS 280.100 and NRS 280.201 constituted prohibited special or local legislation under the Nevada Constitution. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed in part, holding NRS 280.100 constitutional because its population classification applies prospectively to all qualifying counties and is rationally related to the goal of reducing duplication in law enforcement without creating absurd distinctions. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the funding formula in NRS 280.201(1)(a) was unconstitutional as it specified rather than classified the shares to be paid by the county and city.

criminal law

In Mays v. Todaro, real estate brokers sued sellers over a disputed broker's commission after buyers defaulted on a $285,000 purchase of a Nevada bar and restaurant, paying only $20,000 of the required $65,000 down payment before forfeiting the deal. The trial court awarded the sellers $9,500 (after deducting a $500 commission) plus interest, costs, and $2,500 in attorney fees. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the handwritten contract clause on commissions was ambiguous and, based on the parties' testimony, meant the $10,000 commission was payable only after the full $65,000 down payment was deposited into escrow; it also clarified that prejudgment interest is excluded when calculating eligibility for attorney fees under NRS 18.010 and upheld the award of expert witness fees as within the trial court's discretion.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, a couple divorced in 1977 under a property settlement agreement that divided real and personal property, then reconciled and cohabited without remarrying until 1979. After the ex-husband's unsuccessful motion to modify the divorce decree, he filed a new complaint seeking to set aside the decree based on alleged fraud and to enforce an oral agreement for reconveyance of real property interests. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the first two causes of action alleging fraud, holding that amendment should be permitted to plead with particularity, but affirmed dismissal of the remaining claims because Nevada law requires a written instrument to create or transfer interests in land under the Statute of Frauds. The court also upheld the district court's judicial notice of the prior divorce proceedings.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over two ambiguous handwritten documents purporting to create a lease with option to purchase real property at 1116 Miller Street in Las Vegas between Aaron Butler and Dan Wheeler. Butler made monthly payments and sought to exercise the option to buy, but the property was conveyed to the Lovolls after their financing was blocked by Butler's recorded agreement, prompting declaratory relief actions and multiple procedural motions including defaults and summary judgments. The district court granted summary judgment declaring the documents void and of no effect under the statute of frauds. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the two writings could be construed together to meet the statute of frauds requirements for an adequate property description and proper subscription, leaving genuine issues of material fact for trial.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Howard Hughes Medical Institute's petition to probate a lost or destroyed will allegedly executed by Howard R. Hughes, Jr., that would have left most of his estate to the Institute. After extensive discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment to the contesting next-of-kin estate, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that under NRS 136.240(3), a lost will cannot be proved unless it was in existence at the testator's death and its provisions are clearly established by at least two credible witnesses testifying from personal knowledge, not hearsay declarations. Hearsay statements by Hughes or others, even if admissible under evidence rules for other purposes, cannot substitute for the required witnesses, and HHMI failed to produce evidence creating a genuine factual issue. Strict statutory compliance is necessary to prevent invalidation of formal will execution requirements.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the conviction of appellant Jackie Clinton Owens for sexual assault after a jury trial in which he was acquitted of related burglary and robbery charges arising from an incident in which he entered the victim's home, threatened her child with scissors, and had nonconsensual intercourse with her. On appeal, Owens raised multiple claims including illegal seizure of clothing evidence, denial of pretrial discovery of the victim's new address, improper references to a prior arrest on a fingerprint card, an allegedly prejudicial jury instruction on refusal to provide court-ordered exemplars, use of a prior felony conviction for impeachment, and improper prosecutorial statements in closing argument. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt (including the victim's positive identification, physical evidence, and the appellant's own letters), that the trial court acted within its discretion on evidentiary and procedural matters, and that the prosecutor's comments did not prejudice the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over liability for fire damage caused by a subcontractor's employee during a construction project, where the general contractor Shea sought to recover repair costs from the subcontractor Hynds, its employee, and Hynds' liability insurer Atlantic after Shea's builder's risk insurer Industrial paid under a loan arrangement. Shea sued for the expenses, but Hynds and the others sought a declaration that they were coinsureds under the Industrial policy, barring subrogation. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Hynds and the employee were coinsureds because the policy's reporting form extended coverage to materials and supplies of others for which Shea was liable, including those on the construction site. As coinsureds, they were immune from subrogation claims by Industrial absent explicit contrary language, and the policy's other-insurance clause did not permit subrogation against Atlantic's separate liability coverage, which was not primary for fire losses.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case concerned buyers of a brothel who sued the seller for rescission of the $400,000 purchase contract and tort damages after learning that the seller had supplied an altered appraisal report that inflated the property's value from $195,000 to over $405,000. The district court entered judgment for the seller, finding insufficient actual and justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed as to the rescission claim, ruling that intentional misrepresentation inducing actual (even partial) reliance supports equitable rescission without needing to prove justifiable reliance, while affirming the denial of damages because tort claims for deceit require justifiable reliance; the case was remanded for further proceedings on rescission.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In County of Clark v. Smith, Clark County appealed a district court order granting excess attorney fees to respondent Smith, who had been appointed to represent an indigent defendant charged with first-degree murder and other felonies. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the case presented extraordinary circumstances under NRS 7.125(4) due to its length, complexity involving medical and legal issues, the number of charges and witnesses, and the financial hardship imposed on the newly practicing attorney. The court reasoned that the detailed fee application and the trial judge's firsthand assessment of the defense supported exceeding the $2,500 statutory maximum, and found no abuse of discretion in approving the excess payment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved buyers who sued a limited partnership operating a marina and related facilities after the general partner signed a memorandum of agreement to sell the partnership's leasehold interest, but the limited partner did not provide written consent. The buyers sought specific performance, damages, an injunction, and an accounting. The district court granted summary judgment to the partnership on the ground that the agreement was unenforceable under NRS 88.100, which requires written consent or ratification by all limited partners for any act that would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute's requirement is unambiguous and absolute, and that the defense could be raised despite not being explicitly pleaded earlier because the buyers had an opportunity to respond without prejudice.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Harvey v. State, two defendants convicted of robbery after a jury trial appealed on the ground that their joint representation by a single appointed public defender created a conflict of interest that denied them effective assistance of counsel. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for new trials with separate counsel, finding that an actual conflict existed because the defense strategy of conceding larceny by both defendants foreclosed acquittal for one, one defendant was called to testify against the other, and counsel's statements at sentencing revealed divided loyalties. The court noted that the trial judge's limited inquiry at arraignment was insufficient to detect or address the conflict, and while federal precedent does not require routine inquiries into joint representation, such inquiries are required under the Nevada Constitution to protect the right to conflict-free counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved buyers William and Clara Clark suing seller Marietta Carcione to enforce a contract for the sale of a home in Las Vegas. The district court granted specific performance, ordering the seller to convey clear title despite a lis pendens attached to the property from a prior lawsuit. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lis pendens provision was not a condition precedent to the seller's duty to convey, and her failure to clear the lien through methods like posting a bond did not excuse performance as it amounted to subjective impossibility. The court reasoned that the contract terms were definite, the Clarks had tendered performance, and specific performance was an appropriate equitable remedy for real property.

property

The case involved the Carrillos seeking to recover survivor's benefits under Nevada's no-fault insurance law after their daughter died in a car accident involving their insured vehicle. They filed for declaratory relief to stack maximum benefits of $9,100 across five separate State Farm policies, arguing for compensation without needing to prove actual economic loss. The district court allowed stacking but limited recovery to the statutory minimum of $5,000 per policy due to lack of proven economic contributions from the daughter. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that minimum benefits could be stacked across policies and that interest and attorney fees were due on overdue amounts, but held that maximum benefits required proof of actual economic loss and that non-economic factors like companionship were excluded under the statute's plain language defining 'things of economic value.'

business & regulatory

The case concerned whether 1977 amendments to Nevada's public employees' retirement statutes, which removed certain positions such as public service commission inspectors, parole counselors, and juvenile probation officers from the definition of 'police officer' eligible for early retirement, could be applied retroactively to employees already in the system. The district court granted declaratory relief to Washoe County and affected employees, ruling that the changes operated only prospectively. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that public employment contracts create limited vested pension rights protected by the state and federal contract clauses. The court reasoned that unilateral removal of early retirement eligibility was not a reasonable modification because it lacked a material relationship to the system's integrity and provided no comparable new advantages to offset the disadvantage.

labor & employment

The case involved Maria Apeceche, a Mexican national employed as a custodian by White Pine County, who alleged that the county discriminated against her based on her national origin by reducing her work hours and salary and later terminating her employment in favor of a janitorial service. The Nevada Equal Rights Commission found that the county had engaged in an unlawful employment practice under NRS 613.330 and ordered reinstatement and back pay. The district court reversed this decision, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence of discriminatory motive and that the county's purported nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. The court reasoned that Apeceche had established a prima facie case of discrimination, which the county failed to rebut with legitimate reasons, and that judicial review must defer to the agency's factual determinations when supported by evidence.

labor & employmentcivil rights