Elmer Millard Gunderson

This case concerns the retrial and second conviction of Santillanes for first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon after an earlier reversal based on improper polygraph references. On appeal, Santillanes argued that references to his failure to attend scheduled police meetings violated his right to remain silent under Doyle v. Ohio, that testimony about his AWOL status from the Air Force was inadmissible evidence of an uncharged crime, and that the prosecutor improperly expressed a personal belief in his guilt. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the missed meetings and AWOL evidence were admissible as conduct showing flight and consciousness of guilt rather than improper comments on silence, that any prosecutorial statements were cured by clarification and did not prejudice the jury, and that other evidentiary issues including forensic blood analysis met admissibility standards. The reasoning emphasized that Santillanes had initially waived Miranda rights and voluntarily agreed to meetings, distinguishing the facts from Doyle, and that the district court properly balanced probative value against prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned an insurance company's repeated denials of accident-policy benefits to a claimant who suffered a permanent stroke during an angiogram, even after multiple resubmissions with medical evidence confirming the event was accidental and unrelated to any pre-existing disease. The jury awarded the policy benefits plus compensatory and punitive damages for bad-faith handling, but the district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict and eliminated the punitive award. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the punitive damages, holding that substantial evidence showed the insurer's unjustified refusals, failure to investigate, and exploitation of the claimant's vulnerable position after the stroke.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a Reno police decoy operation in which an officer posed as an intoxicated person with money visible in his pocket to catch potential thieves; David Hawkins took the money and was arrested while his white companion was not. The district court granted Hawkins' habeas corpus petition, finding the operation indistinguishable from prior entrapment cases, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the decoy planted the idea of the crime by creating an artificial temptation with no relation to actual street crimes in the area, as confirmed by the police survey and the prosecutor's statements, and thus constituted impermissible entrapment under precedents like Oliver and Moreland.

criminal lawprocedure

In Maresca v. State, the appellant was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon following a 1981 shooting and robbery at the Airbase Inn near Reno, after which he fled to Florida and lived under an assumed name for five years. On appeal, he challenged the convictions on grounds including the loss of evidence such as photographs and a videotape, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in questioning about his silence and the mafia, and the admission of hearsay statements from a surviving victim. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, ruling that the appellant failed to show governmental bad faith or prejudice from the lost evidence, that any improper questions were not violations of his rights or were harmless, and that the hearsay statements met reliability requirements under state evidence rules given the circumstances and the declarant's unavailability. The court noted substantial other evidence of guilt, such as matching bullets found at the appellant's residence, unexplained loose change, and his flight after promising to speak with police.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether individuals charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) in municipal courts are entitled to jury trials under the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions, and the constitutionality of NRS 266.550 which bars jury trials in municipal courts. The court consolidated various appeals and petitions from defendants whose demands for jury trials were denied. It determined that NRS 266.550 does not apply to the municipal courts of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas because those cities operate under special legislative charters. Turning to constitutional questions, the court observed that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses and analyzed the penalties associated with DUI to assess whether the offense qualifies as petty or serious.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved graduates of the unaccredited Nevada School of Law who had passed the Nevada bar exam but sought a waiver of SCR 51(3), the rule requiring a law degree from an ABA-accredited institution for admission to the State Bar of Nevada. The court granted the waiver petition, allowing the petitioners' admission despite the school's failure to obtain ABA provisional accreditation by the August 1988 deadline. The core reasoning was that the accreditation rule aims to ensure high standards of legal competence, but a waiver is appropriate when an applicant demonstrates that their education was functionally equivalent to that at an ABA-approved school, as the petitioners did through evidence of the school's improvements and other factors unrelated to educational quality.

procedure

This case involved whether the widow of a 59-year-old security inspector could receive death benefits under the Nevada Industrial Accident Act after he collapsed and died of cardiac arrest moments after completing a required one-mile run as part of a job-mandated physical fitness test, despite having asymptomatic pre-existing coronary artery disease. The State Industrial Insurance System, hearing officer, and appeals officer all denied the claim as non-compensable, but the district court reversed on judicial review, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the death qualified as an "injury by accident" arising out of and in the course of employment because the extraordinary physical stress imposed by the employer constituted a sudden and violent causative force producing immediate results. It further concluded that NRS 616.110(2)'s exception for heart ailments did not bar compensation, as the immediate response to the exceptional employment-mandated exertion distinguished the case from precedents involving ordinary activities unlikely to result from the job.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between the Leavitts and the Konings, who formed Aspen Inn Corporation (AIC) as equal partners to develop and operate a hotel on leased Utah land controlled by the Konings' company LSI. After AIC sold the hotel on terms favored by the Leavitts, the buyer defaulted, leading to foreclosure proceedings, a trustee's sale, and claims that the Konings and LSI wrongfully interfered with AIC's interests, including by terminating the lease and refusing to participate in protecting the second trust deed. The Leavitts sued for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, but the district court ruled they failed to prove actionable conduct by the respondents. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's factual findings were supported by the record and that no liability had been established. The dissent argued the evidence showed a clear breach of fiduciary duty warranting reversal and damages.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, a father sued McDonald's as guardian ad litem for his three-and-a-half-year-old son, alleging the child sustained burns from a hot metal merry-go-round on the restaurant's playground. The jury returned a verdict for McDonald's after hearing evidence that included the father's conflicting accounts of the incident and testimony that no similar burns had been reported on the equipment. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that evidence of the absence of prior similar accidents was admissible to show the defendant lacked notice of any dangerous condition, and that the trial court properly refused the plaintiff's proposed jury instruction on contributory negligence because it incorrectly stated the applicable standard of care. The court reasoned that precedent allowing evidence of prior accidents to prove notice also supports admitting the lack of such accidents to negate notice, and that the instruction misapplied the law regarding a young child's capacity for negligence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Webster, the case involved a defendant charged with felony DUI causing substantial bodily harm after a car accident; the district court suppressed blood alcohol test results because a laboratory assistant, rather than a more specifically defined medical technician, had drawn the sample, which the court ruled did not comply with NRS 484.393(1)(a). The Nevada Supreme Court reversed that suppression order and remanded the case. The court reasoned that the statute's term "technician employed in a medical laboratory" was intended in a generic sense at the time of enactment in 1969, before the narrower regulatory definitions existed, and that the legislature had progressively broadened authorized categories to ensure competent yet practical blood draws without unduly burdening facilities. The opinion emphasized ordinary meaning, statutory purpose, and avoidance of absurd results in construing the provision.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hoopes v. Hammargren, a patient sued her neurosurgeon for malpractice after he diagnosed her with multiple sclerosis, prescribed numerous sedatives and tranquilizers over several years, and engaged in a sexual relationship with her that she alleged exploited their physician-patient dynamic; she later learned from other doctors that she did not have the disease. The district court granted summary judgment to the doctor on all claims and found the suit time-barred. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the action was timely filed under the applicable statute of limitations (with the discovery date in 1979 and tolling provisions allowing the 1981 complaint), that genuine issues of material fact existed on the mistreatment and sexual exploitation claims precluding summary judgment, and that the doctor had presented no expert evidence to defeat those claims as a matter of law, while affirming summary judgment on the misdiagnosis claim.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a self-insured employer's appeal of a district court judgment affirming an award of workers' compensation benefits to employee Isiah Dawson, who suffered a work-related back injury later aggravated by a car accident while traveling to physical therapy. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that injuries sustained while traveling to receive treatment for a compensable work injury are themselves compensable and not barred by the going-and-coming rule. It further found that the employer had improperly suspended and withheld benefits for over seventeen months without adequate basis, including after adverse administrative and district court decisions, and imposed sanctions including attorney fees, interest, and additional damages for the dilatory conduct. The core reasoning centered on the employer's duty as a self-insured entity to handle claims fairly and promptly under the workers' compensation statutes, with subsequent injuries during required medical travel being foreseeable consequences of the original work injury.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Holyfield v. State, two defendants were convicted of armed robbery, burglary, and kidnapping at a credit union based in part on statements obtained from one defendant while in jail. The Nevada Supreme Court held that police violated the Fifth Amendment and Nevada Constitution by placing a known felon informant in the cell with Holyfield to elicit incriminating statements without Miranda warnings, which the officers could not lawfully obtain directly. The court therefore reversed Holyfield's conviction due to the improper use of the informant's testimony but affirmed Townsell's conviction because no such tainted evidence was used against him and other evidence supported the verdict.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Morse v. Daly, adoptive parents Timothy and Sherry Morse challenged a district court order granting their petition to adopt Marcus Daly Lamb while reserving jurisdiction to consider future visitation requests by the child's step-grandmother, Juanita Daly. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that courts possess the authority in adoption proceedings to reserve jurisdiction over potential visitation when it serves the child's best interests. The ruling drew on prior precedent from Daly v. Morse involving guardianship powers and analogous cases recognizing equitable jurisdiction to preserve family contacts post-adoption if beneficial to the minor. The court rejected the argument that adoption automatically precludes any consideration of visitation rights by non-parents.

family law

In Oliver v. State, the defendant was convicted of larceny from the person after taking a ten-dollar bill from a police decoy pretending to be an intoxicated vagrant in downtown Las Vegas. The court reversed the conviction on grounds of entrapment. The core reasoning was that the decoy operation created an extraordinary temptation by prominently displaying money while appearing vulnerable and unresponsive, inducing a person with no prior criminal predisposition—who had initially tried to assist the decoy—to commit the theft. The police thus manufactured the crime rather than detecting existing criminal intent, as required to avoid improper inducement under Nevada precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Cathy Woods's conviction for first-degree murder in the 1976 slaying of Michelle Mitchell, based largely on her confession while committed to a mental hospital. Woods's defense sought to introduce testimony from a witness that another person had admitted helping dispose of evidence and planning the crime to cover up a separate murder, as well as newspaper articles showing that details in the confession were publicly available. The district court excluded this evidence, ruling the testimony insufficiently trustworthy under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest and the articles irrelevant or hearsay. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the excluded evidence met the requirements of NRS 51.345 because the declarant was unavailable, the statements were against penal interest, and corroborating circumstances indicated trustworthiness, and that the articles were admissible to rebut the state's claim that only the killer could know the details.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a dispute between Donald Speer and Tropicana Hotel Corporation (controlled by Mitzi Briggs) over an alleged oral employment agreement for Speer to serve as general manager with equity in the company, following negotiations at a 1975 meeting in Atherton, California. Speer began work but neither the employment contract nor a stock option agreement was ever signed; after disagreements and Speer's departure amid a strike and management changes, he sued for breach of both oral agreements. The district court found a binding oral employment contract that was breached and awarded liquidated damages, while holding the stock option unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the employment contract ruling and damages award, concluding no binding agreement existed because the parties intended any deal to be formalized in a signed writing, and affirmed the denial of the stock option claim on the alternative ground that the parties never reached a meeting of the minds on the transfer terms.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a casino guest, Coolidge Brown, who was arrested for cheating at a slot machine after casino employees observed the reels sticking and reported suspected manipulation to gaming authorities, leading to his detention despite the machine later being found defective due to normal wear. Brown sued El Dorado Hotel for false arrest and negligence, and a jury awarded him damages under a general verdict. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support liability on the negligence theory because employees failed to inspect the machine, inform authorities of prior malfunctions, or move Brown despite multiple blackouts and their knowledge that reels could stick without player interference. The court noted that charges against Brown were dropped and that the casino had posted required notices but still owed a duty of reasonable care in initiating the arrest process.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death claim arising from alleged medical malpractice in the treatment of Winifred Gilloon, who died in 1979 after developing complications from negligent care following knee surgery in 1976. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the two- and four-year limitations periods in NRS 41A.097 had expired before the 1981 complaint was filed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that in a wrongful death action the term "injury" refers to the decedent's death rather than the underlying malpractice, so the limitation periods begin to run from the date of death or its discovery by the heirs. The court reasoned that a wrongful death claim is an independent cause of action that does not accrue until death occurs, and that the legislature did not intend to extinguish such claims before they arise, consistent with the statute's text, its California origins, and prior precedent interpreting the same provision.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Smith, the case involved an appeal from a district court order granting a writ of mandamus to compel a jury trial in a justice's court prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI) under NRS 484.379. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, holding that the defendant had neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to a jury trial. The court reasoned that NRS 175.011(2) is procedural and does not create a substantive right to a jury trial upon demand, and that DUI is a "petty" offense because the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment, so no jury trial right attaches under the Sixth Amendment or the Nevada Constitution as interpreted through common-law standards. The opinion declined to follow contrary federal circuit precedent on the significance of fines exceeding $500.

criminal lawprocedure