This case concerned the adoption of a young child with Native American ancestry and challenges under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to the validity of the adoption based on lack of proper judicial certification of parental consent. The court decided that a tribal enrollment officer's affidavit is sufficient evidence to establish a child's status as a Native American child subject to the ICWA, and that a tribe has independent standing to challenge a voluntary adoption under the Act. It further held that because the adoptive parent had no opportunity to rebut the affidavit, the district court's order vacating the adoption must be reversed and the matter remanded. The reasoning relied on ICWA provisions regarding evidence of tribal membership, tribal intervention rights, and due process requirements for rebuttal.

family lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case involved consolidated petitions challenging two Nevada district courts' refusals to dismiss qui tam lawsuits filed under the state's False Claims Act, which allows private plaintiffs to sue on behalf of the state for alleged fraud involving public funds, here based on tax deficiencies by various retailers. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district courts manifestly abused their discretion by denying the Attorney General's motions to dismiss for good cause. The core reasoning was that while tax-based false claims actions are permissible in some circumstances, Nevada law assigns primary responsibility for factual evaluations and legal interpretations of revenue statutes to the Department of Taxation's expertise, so the Attorney General's determination that such issues should first be addressed by that department provides sufficient good cause for dismissal under the FCA.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned the admissibility of a registered nurse's affidavit regarding the withdrawal of a blood sample in a misdemeanor driving under the influence prosecution. The municipal and district courts excluded portions of the affidavit for exceeding the scope of NRS 50.315(4) and ordered the prosecution to produce the nurse. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the affidavit fully complied with the statute and was admissible. It further concluded that NRS 50.315(4) is constitutional under the Confrontation Clause because the statute provides the defendant an opportunity to subpoena and cross-examine the nurse. The court reversed the district court's denial of mandamus relief and remanded for a determination on whether the defendant waived confrontation rights.

criminal lawprocedure

Willie Warren was convicted of robbery following a police decoy operation in which an officer posed as an intoxicated person with visible cash in his pocket, and Warren approached and took the money. Warren appealed, arguing that the operation amounted to entrapment, that the court should reject the rule in Luce v. United States requiring a defendant to testify before challenging impeachment evidence, and that a certified minute order from a prior California conviction was improperly admitted to rebut an entrapment defense or for impeachment. The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that Warren had waived standing to raise entrapment on appeal, declined to follow Luce and instead adopted an offer-of-proof procedure, determined that the minute order was admissible to show predisposition but not for impeachment (though any error was harmless), and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Potter v. Potter, the parents had shared joint physical custody of their child after divorce but the mother sought to relocate with the child to California for a job and educational opportunity, filing a petition under Nevada’s relocation statute NRS 125C.200. The father opposed the move and argued that the statute did not apply because the parties shared joint physical custody. The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 125C.200 applies only when one parent has primary physical custody, not in joint physical custody arrangements; instead, a parent seeking to relocate must file a motion to modify custody under NRS 125.510(2). The district court therefore erred by applying the relocation statute and granting the petition without first determining whether a change to primary custody was warranted. The court reversed the order and remanded for the district court to decide, under the best-interests-of-the-child standard, whether the child should reside primarily with the mother in California or the father in Nevada.

family law

In Weber v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of 17 felony counts, including the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl and the murders of her mother and brother, for which he received a death sentence on one murder count and life without parole on the other. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The court acknowledged that some trial errors occurred but concluded they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not affect the outcome. The opinion reviews the factual background of the crimes, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing aggravators before reaching this determination.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Nevada State Welfare Division could impose a lien on a deceased Medicaid recipient's interest in jointly owned real property to secure future estate recovery of benefits paid, prior to the death of the surviving spouse. The court held that placing such a lien does not constitute an impermissible "recovery" under federal Medicaid law (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)) or the parallel Nevada statute (NRS 422.2935), provided the lien is limited to the deceased recipient's prior interest and includes mandatory release provisions upon any bona fide sale or encumbrance demanded by the surviving spouse. The court reasoned that a lien is merely a mechanism to protect the state's interest rather than an immediate collection, but the state's proposed liens and notices were overly broad and lacked required clarity, violating protections against spousal impoverishment. It therefore affirmed injunctive relief for the two named surviving spouses but reversed the injunction as to the uncertified class because the district court acted before the class notification period ended.

healthcarepropertyprocedure

This case arose from a divorce and child custody dispute in which the law firm representing Steven Leibowitz hired a legal assistant who had performed limited work on Deena Leibowitz's file at the opposing firm. The district court disqualified the firm under the precedent of Ciaffone v. District Court, which had applied strict imputed disqualification rules to nonlawyer employees. The Nevada Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that screening procedures for nonlawyer employees are sufficient to protect confidential information and that such employees are not subject to the same imputation rules as attorneys. The court clarified and partially overruled Ciaffone, concluding that disqualification was not required where the assistant was isolated from the matter and no confidential information was actually disclosed.

family lawprocedure

The case involved charges against multiple defendants for the beating death of a man during a retaliatory attack at a motel, specifically challenging the first-degree felony-murder count based on burglary with intent to commit battery. The district court dismissed the felony-murder charge under the merger doctrine, concluding that the burglary merged with the homicide due to identical intents. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the merger doctrine does not apply because Nevada's felony-murder statute explicitly includes burglary as a predicate felony, and the legislature did not intend to exclude burglaries committed with assaultive intent; the court reasoned that the felonious intent in the burglary supplies the malice for murder without requiring proof of premeditation.

criminal law

In Evans v. State, the appellant challenged his 1994 convictions for burglary and four counts of first-degree murder, along with his death sentences, through a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus after the district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief as to the convictions, finding no claims that required an evidentiary hearing, but reversed in part on the death sentences. The court held that trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the prosecutor's arguments during the penalty phase, leading to the vacation of the death sentences and remand for a new penalty hearing. The decision rested on analysis of counsel's performance under prevailing standards without needing additional factual development for the guilt-phase claims.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hudson v. Warden, the appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of driving under the influence causing substantial bodily harm and one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the latter enhanced to a category D felony based on prior convictions. Hudson filed a post-conviction habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel and that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary, which the district court denied. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the district court's ruling that a presentence investigation report alone sufficed to prove the prior convictions for enhancement purposes, and that Hudson's guilty pleas were therefore not knowingly made due to the unresolved enhancement issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Dr. Susan Meyer suing Sunrise Hospital for breach of contract after her medical staff privileges were suspended and later revoked for twelve months following her brief treatment and discharge of a homeless patient who died on hospital grounds two hours later. The district court dismissed the complaint after discovery, concluding that the hospital's peer review actions were reasonable and shielded by immunity under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, determining that the hospital's decision met HCQIA standards for protecting patient care quality and that judicial review was available to assess compliance with the statute's immunity provisions. The court reasoned that objective evidence from the peer review committees supported the revocation despite the doctor's claims of improper motives tied to regulatory fears.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned whether Annabelle Banegas, the unmarried cohabitant and factual financial dependent of deceased worker Robert Banegas, was entitled to workers' compensation death benefits under NRS 616C.505 after his 1994 work-related death. SIIS denied the claim, an appeals officer upheld the denial, and the district court affirmed, ruling that benefits were limited to legal dependents related by blood or marriage. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute's enumerated categories and subsection 8 for other dependencies require a legal relationship rather than mere factual dependency at the time of injury. The court reached this conclusion after finding the provision ambiguous and interpreting it according to legislative intent, statutory structure, and definitions of dependency elsewhere in the workers' compensation scheme.

labor & employmentfamily law

In State v. Freese, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and lewdness involving a five-year-old child and entered a guilty plea to one count of sexual assault on a minor under sixteen pursuant to a written plea agreement. After his conviction, Freese filed a post-conviction habeas petition alleging an inadequate plea canvass and ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court granted relief on the canvass issue, finding that the oral questioning failed to cover the elements of the offense or rights waived and that the written plea memorandum could not be considered. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plea was valid under the totality of the circumstances because the combination of the court's questioning and the signed plea agreement showed the defendant understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea. The court reasoned that a written plea agreement may properly be reviewed alongside the oral canvass to determine whether a guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dennis v. State, Terry Jess Dennis was charged with first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon for the 1999 strangulation killing of Ilona Straumanis and entered a guilty plea under a plea agreement. Following a penalty hearing before a three-judge panel, which found three aggravating circumstances from prior violent felony convictions and two mitigating circumstances related to alcohol influence and mental illness, the panel imposed a death sentence after determining the aggravators outweighed the mitigators. On appeal, Dennis challenged only the excessiveness of the death sentence, but the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the evidence supported the aggravators, the sentence was not influenced by passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors, and it was not excessive in light of the crime and comparable cases.

criminal law

The case involved an employee of the Horseshoe Club who suffered electrical shock injuries while working near high-voltage transformers in the casino's basement and received workers' compensation benefits. Nevada Power, sued by the employee for negligence, filed a third-party claim against the Horseshoe seeking indemnification under Nevada's overhead power line statutes (NRS 455.200-455.250), arguing these created an independent duty that overrode the employer's workers' compensation immunity. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that the statutes did not create such an exception. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that the statutes do impose an independent duty to indemnify that can except employers from immunity, but the equipment at issue did not qualify as an "overhead line" because it was located inside a building rather than above ground, so the dismissal was affirmed.

labor & employmenttorts & liability