Noel Edwin Manoukian

This case involved a dispute over the validity of a divorce decree and property division after one spouse's death. Donald Koester filed for divorce in 1978, and the trial court issued a decision in July 1979 declaring certain jointly held real property to be community property, but the wife died in an accident before the formal decree was filed. The estate later moved for entry of the decree nunc pro tunc to a date before the death, which the trial court granted. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the nunc pro tunc order was appealable and properly entered under NRS 17.140, because the court's pre-death decision had resolved the issues and the original judgment was merely voidable due to lack of party substitution. The court therefore affirmed the order validating the divorce decree.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved K-Mart challenging assessments imposed by the State Industrial Insurance System under A.B. 433 to fund increased workers' compensation benefits for death and permanent total disability, arguing impairment of contract, due process violations, and that the System's actions constituted unpromulgated regulations. The court held that the workers' compensation system creates a status-based relationship rather than a contractual one, so no contract impairment occurred, and the Legislature validly exercised its police power in making the law retroactive. It further determined that the statutory assessment formula was not a regulation, but the System's rules on payment dates and offsets against dividends were regulations that required proper promulgation under the Administrative Procedure Act, leading to partial affirmance and reversal.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case was an appeal from a judgment in a wrongful death action based on strict products liability, where the defendant sought to apply comparative fault principles to reduce any damages award. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Nevada's comparative negligence statute does not apply to strict products liability actions and declining to adopt comparative fault judicially in this area. The core reasoning was that the statute is limited to negligence claims, as shown by its text and prior cases distinguishing strict liability (which requires no proof of negligence and does not recognize ordinary contributory negligence as a defense) from negligence; the court viewed the issue as better suited for legislative resolution given conflicting authorities elsewhere.

torts & liability

This case involved a divorced mother who obtained an Indiana judgment for approximately $90,000 in child support arrearages from her ex-husband and sought to enforce it against his Nevada home after he claimed a homestead exemption under NRS 115.010. The district court denied her motion to set aside the exemption, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the homestead law does not protect against enforcement of child support judgments. The court reasoned that homestead protections exist to shield families from outside creditors, not to permit a parent to evade support duties to his own children, and that applying the exemption here would contradict the statute's purpose even though the claim did not fit a listed statutory exception. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawproperty

This case involved Virginia Hay's lawsuit against her former cohabitant Tom Hay after their 23-year unmarried relationship ended, seeking a declaration of her interest in property acquired during that time and claiming the couple had pooled resources and held assets as if married or in a partnership. The district court granted summary judgment to Tom, finding no cause of action stated. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged an implied-in-fact contract for property acquisition and ownership, which unmarried cohabitants may enforce under Nevada law by analogy to community property principles or equitable remedies, provided the agreement is not based on meretricious sexual services. The court further reasoned that material factual disputes existed regarding the parties' agreement and property interests, making summary judgment improper in this notice-pleading jurisdiction, and remanded for trial with leave to amend the complaint.

family lawproperty

In Montesano v. Donrey Media Group, the plaintiff sued a newspaper for the tort of public disclosure of private facts after a 1978 article recounted his 1955 involvement in a fatal hit-and-run accident (as a juvenile) and a later adult marijuana conviction, in the context of a story on police officers killed in the line of duty. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that no actionable invasion of privacy occurred because the published facts came from public court and probation records, and the plaintiff's criminal history was newsworthy given its connection to a current public-interest topic. The court also rejected the statutory confidentiality claim under NRS 62.211(3), finding the relevant statute did not apply retroactively to the 1955 records.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawfree speech