Jon R. Collins

This case involves former spouses Edith and Graham Jones disputing enforcement of a 1963 New York separation agreement for alimony and child support after their Nevada divorce, where the agreement was never incorporated into the decree and survived as a contract. Edith sued for breach seeking arrears after Graham stopped payments and diverted some child support, while Graham raised defenses and counterclaims seeking to modify or void the agreement based on changed finances, alleged interference with visitation, and other grounds. The trial court granted partial relief by reducing future payments and applying trust funds but denied costs and fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the agreement must be enforced as a binding contract without court modification of its terms, that the prevailing party was entitled to mandatory costs, and that attorney's fees required reasoned consideration under the applicable statute including accrued interest.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a direct appeal by a 17-year-old minor from a juvenile court order certifying him to stand trial as an adult on an armed robbery charge under Nevada law. The lower court had reviewed a probation department investigation report covering the minor's background, prior record, and circumstances of the offense before holding a hearing and entering the certification order. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the governing statute (NRS 62.080) was constitutional as it satisfied due process requirements outlined in Kent v. United States, that the order provided an adequate basis for review, and that challenges to the report's admissibility could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The court rejected arguments that the statute allowed arbitrary action or that the certification lacked sufficient findings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a probate court order confirming the public auction sale of a deceased partner's interest in the Desert Cab Company partnership to third-party buyers, over objections from the surviving partner Peter Balaban and an unsuccessful bidder. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that under the Uniform Partnership Act the estate could sell only the deceased partner's share of profits and surplus as personal property, not specific partnership assets or the physical business itself, which vested in the surviving partner. The court reasoned that the lower court's sale improperly conflated partnership interests with tangible assets and failed to first require an accounting to determine any surplus value as of dissolution. It further held that an unsuccessful bidder lacks standing to object to sale confirmation under probate statutes, as only interested persons in the estate may do so.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is an appeal from a first-degree murder conviction and death sentence in Nevada state court, arising from the 1968 stabbing death of Joan Ingram near a highway after her car broke down. The defendant, Anderson, was arrested in California on unrelated charges, made incriminating statements to police, and was later tried and convicted after delays due to counsel changes and an escape. The court affirmed the conviction, sentence, and denial of a new trial, holding that the defendant was not denied a speedy trial, that evidence including statements and a bayonet was properly admitted, that jury instructions and the excusal of a death-penalty-averse juror were not erroneous, and that the evidence supported the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Jesse Jeremiah Lee’s conviction for possession of dangerous drugs after officers found seconal capsules hidden in his shoes following a car accident. Lee appealed on the ground that the evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment because he had not been arrested and had not given valid consent. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that Lee’s peaceful and silent compliance with the officer’s request to remove his shoes amounted to voluntary consent and an intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. The majority reasoned that the absence of any force, threat, objection, or resistance supported a finding of voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an independent candidate for Nevada governor whose certificate of candidacy was challenged for lacking sufficient valid signatures under state law requiring signers to add their place of residence. The trial court invalidated 97 signatures due to incomplete address information, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the signatures substantially complied with the statute because the information provided allowed verification of the signers' voter registration status. The court reasoned that the purpose of the residence requirement is verification, and substantial compliance suffices when that purpose is met, drawing on precedents from other jurisdictions favoring this approach over strict compliance. Consequently, the candidate's name was ordered to appear on the ballot.

elections

The case involved a convicted defendant's request for bail pending appeal after being found guilty of illegal possession of heroin and sentenced to six years in prison. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of bail, holding that while the 1967 amendments to Nevada statutes allow bail unless the appeal is frivolous or for delay, denial is appropriate if substantial evidence indicates the applicant may threaten the community or abuse the right to bail. The court reviewed the lower court's reasons, including evidence of the defendant's involvement in heroin trafficking across states and carrying a gun, and found them sufficient to support the denial without needing to address all points raised.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal by the husband from a divorce decree that awarded the wife the divorce, child custody, child support, and a division of property. The sole issue on appeal concerned the lower court's adjudication of community and separate property rights, particularly its classification of the marital home as community property, its award of the home's equity and other assets to the wife, and its transfer of certain items of the husband's separate property to the wife. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow the statutory directive under NRS 125.150(1) to make a just and equitable division with regard to the respective merits of the parties, the condition in which they would be left, through whom the property was acquired, and burdens imposed for the children; equal division is the general rule, and the record did not support awarding the home solely to the wife or divesting the husband of his separate property without a stated justification tied to support needs. The court therefore reversed the property portion of the judgment and remanded for a limited new trial on that issue.

family lawproperty

The case involved a 12-year-old girl injured when handrails on a swimming pool slide broke at a motel where her family was staying as paying guests, causing her to fall six feet onto concrete and damage her teeth. A jury awarded her $9,000 in damages for negligence, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the motel on the ground that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the verdict, ruling that a motel owes business invitees a duty of ordinary care to keep premises reasonably safe, including inspecting for and warning of hidden or latent defects, and that circumstantial evidence of the slide's lack of inspection for a year and a half supported an inference of constructive notice sufficient for the jury to decide liability. The court held that whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect was a question of fact properly left to the jury.

torts & liability

The case concerned an appeal from a trial court order discharging an attachment levied on respondent Smitley's property in a judicial foreclosure action brought by Paramount Insurance to recover on promissory notes secured by deeds of trust and for alleged waste on apartment properties. Paramount had obtained a receiver due to the properties' deterioration but later sought attachment based on an affidavit claiming the security was of insufficient value. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the discharge, holding that its prior McMillan decision restricting attachments to post-sale valueless security under trust deeds applied only to non-judicial sales and not judicial foreclosure proceedings. The court noted that Nevada's attachment statute (NRS 31.010) allows attachment when security is insufficient in value, unlike the California statute it was based on, but the one-action rule under NRS 40.430 still required proper exhaustion or proof in this context.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between jewelry wholesaler Charles Travitsky and retailer Robert Brandon over payments for antique jewelry transferred through outright sales and memorandum arrangements from 1961 to 1963, where Brandon often paid with checks or promissory notes that were dishonored. The trial court awarded Travitsky $7,345 plus prejudgment interest starting October 15, 1963. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the principal judgment, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the amount owed despite conflicting accounts and poor records from both parties. It modified the interest award, holding that prejudgment interest under NRS 99.040 must run from the date obligations became due rather than a date chosen for fairness, and determined that all obligations were due by May 15, 1964.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether a garagemen's lien on a repaired and painted automobile remained valid after the lien holders repossessed the vehicle but delayed its sale for nearly two years. The Faheys sued for conversion after Ewing Brothers towed the car back and later sold it to satisfy the unpaid painting charges, with the credit union intervening as a lienholder. The trial court held that the lien terminated because the statute required enforcement by sale within a reasonable time, awarding damages to the plaintiffs. The court reversed and ordered dismissal, ruling that NRS 108.270 and related provisions permit but do not require sale, allowing the lien to persist until payment or sale under the common-law possessory remedy and the statute's permissive language.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by Lorene McIntosh against Whittlesea Blue Cab Company after she was injured while riding in one of its taxis. McIntosh initially filed suit alleging negligence based on the driver's failure to obtain the identity of another driver who rear-ended the taxi, but she dismissed that action and filed a new one claiming her injuries resulted from the taxi driver's abrupt stop after the collision. At trial in the second case, the cab company sought to introduce pleadings and documents from the first action to impeach McIntosh's testimony, but the trial court excluded them; the jury awarded her $35,000. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the prior pleadings were admissible as admissions against McIntosh even though the first case had been dismissed, and that their exclusion was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Joe Vincze's conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses under NRS 205.380 after he accepted checks totaling $1,850 from Roberto Novak in exchange for a bill of sale to mining equipment that Vincze did not own, leading Novak to be denied possession by the actual owner, Milwhite Mud Sales, Inc. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and the trial court's denial of a new trial. The court held that the prosecutor's improper response to a grand juror's question about ownership did not vitiate the indictment because Vincze failed to object timely or show prejudice. It also ruled that a proper reasonable doubt instruction made the requested circumstantial evidence instruction unnecessary, that the post-conviction challenge to the indictment failed under a reduced standard without prejudice shown, and that the facts supported a criminal rather than merely civil proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Joseph Vincze, who was convicted in Nevada of the felony of obtaining money by false pretenses from a victim in Oregon through a fraudulent business deal for a boat concession and partnership in Nevada. Vincze petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that Nevada lacked jurisdiction because key acts like the false representations occurred in Oregon. The court affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that Nevada courts had jurisdiction under NRS 171.020. The statute permits prosecution in Nevada when a person commits acts within the state in execution of an intent to commit a crime that culminates elsewhere, and here sufficient elements—including receipt and deposit of the check leading to the funds being obtained—occurred in Nevada. The decision relied on the principle that the acts in Nevada amounted to more than mere preparation and satisfied the elements needed for jurisdiction over the completed offense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two appellants who lived together in Reno and were indicted by a grand jury for possession of narcotics after police found marijuana, hashish, and other drugs during a search of their home pursuant to a warrant. The appellants sought pre-trial habeas corpus relief, arguing that the grand jury lacked jurisdiction because a criminal complaint had already been filed and that the evidence was insufficient to show probable cause for possession since neither was found in actual possession of the drugs. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, holding that prior case law permitted dual proceedings by complaint and indictment without jurisdictional defect. On the evidence issue, the court ruled that the circumstances of the appellants' residence in the home and the locations where drugs were found supported an inference of dominion and control, which was enough to establish probable cause even if not sufficient for conviction. The court noted that only probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is required for a grand jury indictment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a jury conviction for attempted burglary after the defendant, masked and simulating a gun, demanded entry to a Reno motel at night and fled when the owner refused and relocked the door; he was arrested nearby shortly afterward. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported inferences of intent to enter unlawfully to commit larceny and an overt act toward that end, satisfying the elements of attempt. The court also ruled that the information sufficiently alleged the offense by stating the charged crime and additional facts, that jury instructions on burglary and attempt were proper when read together, and that a post-trial challenge to the information warranted a more lenient review standard focused on whether it reasonably charged the offense. The opinion noted that such sufficiency issues may be raised on appeal but are best addressed earlier.

criminal law

The case was a personal injury action in which plaintiff Georgia Ginnis, a business invitee at the Mapes Hotel, was injured when an automatic door manufactured by Dor-O-Matic closed on her as she exited. She sued both the hotel and the manufacturer on theories including negligence, implied warranty, res ipsa loquitur, and strict tort liability. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to Dor-O-Matic and remanded for a new trial while affirming the judgment as to the Mapes Hotel. The reversal rested on trial errors including the refusal to give a strict liability instruction, the exclusion of evidence of similar prior incidents with the same door, and other evidentiary and instructional rulings that prejudiced the case against the manufacturer.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal from a divorce action in Nevada between Dorothy Bakewell Kelly and William Cody Kelly, focusing on whether the parties had accumulated any community property subject to division. The lower court, adopting the master's findings, granted the divorce to the wife but determined there was no community property, awarding her only alimony and a specific statue as a gift. The wife appealed, arguing that assets acquired during the marriage, enhancements to the husband's separate estate from his efforts, and certain properties like interests in companies and a residence should be classified as community property. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the husband's income derived from his preexisting separate property trust and investments with only inconsequential effort on his part, rebutting the presumption that post-marriage acquisitions were community property through clear evidence of separate funds. The court noted that title and source of funds determine property character, and no community toil or credit was shown in the acquisitions.

family lawproperty

In this case, Great Western Land & Cattle Corp. filed a civil complaint against Noel McElhaney in 1964, and McElhaney responded with an answer and counterclaim; the matter was not set for trial until 1969, after more than five years had passed. The plaintiff moved under NRCP 41(c) and (e) to dismiss both its own complaint and the counterclaim for want of prosecution, but the district court denied the motion as to the counterclaim, granted a continuance, and awarded McElhaney costs and attorney fees. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition, holding that the rules require mandatory dismissal of any counterclaim—whether compulsory or permissive—if not brought to trial within five years absent a written stipulation extending the time. The court reasoned that a counterclaim is a separate cause of action with the same five-year requirement, that Rule 41(c) applies to the entire rule including subdivision (e), and that no equitable exceptions or distinctions between types of counterclaims are permitted. It therefore vacated the award of costs and fees and barred further proceedings on the counterclaim.

procedure