The case involved Kathleen Turner, who was struck by a foul ball while seated in an unprotected concessions area (the Beer Garden) at a minor league baseball game, leading to claims of negligence, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the stadium operator. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court adopted the limited duty rule for baseball stadiums, requiring operators to provide a sufficient number of protected seats for spectators who desire them and to screen the most dangerous areas of the stands, but held that this duty did not extend to the Beer Garden, which was not a high-risk area, and that the operator had met its obligations through warnings and available protected seating. The court concluded that the Turners' claims failed as a matter of law because no duty was breached.
In Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., a worker injured in 1987 and rendered quadriplegic challenged a successor insurer's directive, following privatization of the state system and a new managed-care contract, that he must switch urologists to one within the insurer's provider network under NRS 616C.090. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of judicial review, holding that the statute applies retroactively to the 1987 claim. The court reasoned that NRS 616C.090 is procedural and remedial rather than a substantive alteration of vested rights, so the worker must select a treating physician consistent with the managed-care contract terms.
In Sheriff v. Witzenburg, the case involved a defendant charged with property crimes who challenged the use of affidavits from out-of-state victims at his preliminary examination under a Nevada statute allowing such evidence to prove lack of permission for possession. The justice court admitted the affidavits and bound the defendant over for trial, but the district court granted habeas relief and dismissed related charges, ruling that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Crawford v. Washington required live testimony. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Confrontation Clause and Crawford do not apply to preliminary examinations, which serve only to determine probable cause rather than adjudicate guilt, and that the statute provides a valid exception to cross-examination rights at that stage.
This case involved a firefighter who developed disabling heart disease after working for successive employers, the City of North Las Vegas from 1970 to 1985 and later Bechtel Nevada Corporation starting in 1991, and who sought workers' compensation benefits under Nevada's conclusive statutory presumption that heart disease in long-term firefighters arises from employment. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the last injurious exposure rule applies to determine liability among successive employers, assigning responsibility to the employer in closest temporal proximity to the disabling event. The district court had instead imposed liability on the earlier employer, the City, and the Supreme Court reversed that order, remanding for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the rule ensures compensation is paid by the most recent employer while allowing the risk to be spread across employers through standard practices like pre-employment medical screenings.
In Valdez v. Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, an injured worker who became a quadriplegic in a 1987 work accident challenged a directive from the successor workers' compensation insurer requiring him to switch urologists to one within the insurer's new managed-care organization network. The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 616C.090 applies retroactively to the 1987 claim and requires the worker to select a physician from within the contracted network. The court reasoned that the statute is procedural and remedial rather than substantive, so it governs existing claims, and that an injured worker has no vested substantive right to retain a specific treating physician outside the managed-care contract terms. The district court's denial of judicial review was affirmed.
This case concerned a custody modification dispute between the biological father and maternal grandmother of a minor child, where the grandmother had been awarded joint legal and primary physical custody after the mother's death and a finding that the father was initially unfit. The district court applied the parental preference doctrine to grant the father's motion for sole custody after finding he had reformed his lifestyle. The appellate court reversed, holding that the parental preference doctrine applies only to initial custody determinations and does not govern subsequent modification requests between a parent and nonparent who already shares joint custody. Instead, the parent seeking modification must demonstrate a material change in circumstances and that the change would substantially enhance the child's welfare, consistent with the best-interest standard under Nevada statutes.