The case concerned a challenge by the Nevada Self-Insurers Association to a workers’ compensation regulation, NAC 616C.476, adopted by the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR). The Association argued that the regulation violated statutes such as NRS 616C.110(2)(c) and NRS 616C.490(5) by permitting physicians to factor in an injured worker’s ability to perform activities of daily living when rating permanent partial disability from spinal injuries, rather than limiting consideration solely to physical impairment. The district court agreed and granted declaratory relief. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the regulation is consistent with the Legislature’s adoption of the fifth edition of the AMA Guides, which explicitly incorporates activities of daily living into spinal impairment ratings after an objective injury is identified. The court reasoned that this approach does not improperly introduce subjective pain or non-physical factors prohibited by statute.
The case involved Avram Nika's post-conviction habeas petition challenging his 1995 first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for killing a motorist who stopped to help him after his car broke down on a Nevada highway. Nika argued that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not challenging a jury instruction on premeditation, known as the Kazalyn instruction, in light of the court's later decision in Byford v. State. The Nevada Supreme Court held that Byford announced a change in the law regarding the mens rea for first-degree murder that applies only prospectively to convictions that were not yet final when Byford was decided, and because Nika's conviction was already final, the instruction was correct at the time of his trial. The court therefore concluded that counsel were not ineffective and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition, rejecting Nika's other claims as well.
This case concerned whether subsequent purchasers of homes in a Nevada community could pursue constructional defect claims under NRS Chapter 40 for defects in residences that had been occupied by prior owners. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus after the district court denied their motion for partial summary judgment on claims related to approximately 700 homes, arguing those homes were not "new residences" based on a prior definition from Westpark Owners’ Ass’n v. District Court. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the definition of “new residence” as a product of original construction unoccupied until its original sale does not bar subsequent owners from bringing such claims. The court reasoned that limiting remedies to first purchasers would undermine the statute's purposes of providing expansive remedies to homeowners and protecting developers, while causing unequal treatment among homeowners, provided the action is timely under the statute of repose.
In this case, a judgment creditor who had domesticated a California arbitration award against a defunct Nevada corporation moved to amend the Nevada judgment to add the corporation's president as an alter ego, making him personally liable. The president had never been named or served in the original California or Nevada proceedings. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a nonparty cannot be added to a final judgment via a post-judgment motion under the alter ego doctrine because that procedure denies the nonparty due process. Instead, the creditor must bring an independent action against the alleged alter ego, providing formal notice, service of process, and an opportunity to be heard. The court therefore vacated the district court's amended judgment and clarified that its earlier decision in McCleary Cattle Co. v. Sewell no longer permits the motion-to-amend approach.
In Summers v. State, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, and assault after a shooting during a drug-related dispute in a Las Vegas motel room. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court primarily addressed whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Crawford v. Washington apply to evidence admitted in the penalty phase of a capital trial, such as victim-impact testimony and records of prior criminal history. The court concluded that these rights do not extend to capital penalty hearings, which are distinct from the guilt phase, and that the evidence remained admissible if reliable and relevant. It therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.
In Washoe Medical Center v. District Court, a plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against a hospital and physician one day before the statute of limitations expired but without the expert affidavit required by NRS 41A.071. After the defendants moved to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint attaching the affidavit, and the district court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that NRCP 15(a) permitted amendment as of right. The Nevada Supreme Court granted the hospital's petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that a complaint filed without the required affidavit is void ab initio and therefore cannot be amended. The court reasoned that because the defective complaint has no legal existence, the amendment rule does not apply and does not conflict with the statute's mandatory dismissal provision.