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

In Wilson v. State, the appellants pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, robbery with use of a deadly weapon, and kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon after they planned and carried out the stabbing death of an undercover police officer during a fake drug deal to obtain money and eliminate a witness. Following a penalty hearing before a three-judge panel, they received death sentences; they then sought to withdraw their pleas, but the trial court denied the motions. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the guilty pleas satisfied the required canvassing standards for voluntariness and understanding of rights and consequences, and that the penalty hearing properly considered aggravating circumstances without procedural error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a juvenile certified to adult court for initial burglary and related charges under NRS 62.080 who was later charged with a separate burglary without recertification to determine if the 1977 amendment allowed adult proceedings on new offenses. The court held that certification terminates juvenile jurisdiction only as to the specific offense considered at the hearing and requires recertification for each independent offense, issuing a writ of prohibition. The statute was found ambiguous because it refers both to transfer of the case and jurisdiction over the person, leading the court to interpret it based on reason, public policy, and precedents from other states that limit the effect to the original charges to permit review of any changed circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a borrower who obtained a $1.5 million construction loan secured by a deed of trust on commercial property for a hotel and later defaulted, leading to foreclosure by the lender. The borrower sued alleging usury based on the interest rate and fees, wrongful foreclosure, civil conspiracy, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and related claims. The court granted summary judgment to the lender on the usury claim, determining that the applicable maximum rate was 12 percent and that late charges and fees did not render the loan usurious, and also on the tort and conspiracy claims for lack of admissible evidence showing material factual disputes. A separate breach of contract claim was left unresolved. The rulings turned on statutory interpretation of usury provisions and application of summary judgment standards under NRCP 56.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a commercial sublease between attorney and business owner Nada Aluevich and Harrah's Club for retail space in Reno; Harrah's exercised an unqualified 90-day termination clause in the 1978 sublease after ten years of similar agreements, prompting Aluevich to sue for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on the theory that the termination was to seize her profitable business. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants on that claim, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The majority held that the tort remedy for bad-faith breach, previously recognized in insurance cases, does not extend to this arm's-length lessor-lessee relationship between sophisticated parties who had negotiated the termination provision without any special element of reliance or fiduciary duty. The court noted that the written leases contained no oral assurances limiting termination and that the parties' ongoing renewals showed no abuse warranting tort liability.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case concerned the constitutionality of Nevada's NRS 11.205, a statute of repose that bars lawsuits against architects, contractors, and similar professionals for defects in construction projects after six years from substantial completion, while excluding owners and occupiers from this protection. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the statute violates equal protection under both state and federal constitutions. The court reasoned that the classification lacks a rational basis because it arbitrarily distinguishes between construction professionals, who lose control after completion, and owners or material suppliers, who are similarly situated but not protected, without a reasonable justification for the differential treatment. The district court's summary judgments based on the statute were reversed accordingly.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a contempt judgment against Southwest Gas Corporation and its executive for allegedly failing to comply with a district court order directing the Nevada Public Service Commission to require Southwest to distribute certain natural gas refund moneys received from its supplier, El Paso Natural Gas Co., to its customers. The refunds stemmed from FERC proceedings and were subject to distribution procedures set by the Commission under state law. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the contempt finding, holding that the district court's order did not explicitly direct Southwest or its officers to take or refrain from any specific actions. The court further concluded that the customer petitioners lacked standing to initiate contempt proceedings to enforce a Commission order, as Nevada statutes assign enforcement authority to the Commission itself through remedies such as mandamus or injunction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Galvan v. State, the appellant challenged his convictions on two counts of felony drunk driving causing death, arguing that a blood sample taken from him while unconscious at the hospital without a warrant or arrest should have been suppressed and that he should have faced only one count despite two victims. The court affirmed both the admission of the blood evidence showing a .263 percent alcohol level and the separate convictions with consecutive sentences. It reasoned that Nevada's implied consent law expressly allows testing of unconscious persons incapable of refusal without an arrest, that the Fourth Amendment was satisfied by probable cause and exigent circumstances due to the rapid dissipation of alcohol, and that the statute permits multiple counts when multiple victims are harmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a residential construction contract for a home in Nevada, where the contractor Kirkpatrick delayed the project, exhausted the $175,000 budget, and refused to finish the work, leading the owners Temme to hire another contractor at a higher cost. After a bench trial, the lower court awarded the owners their actual expenses of $84,333.73 to complete the house. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed whether damages should be limited to the reasonable cost of completion or could include the actual costs incurred. The court affirmed the award, adopting the actual cost measure of damages for breach of a construction contract to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in with full performance, while noting that the contractor had not shown the expenditures were unreasonable.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Franklin v. State, a jury convicted the defendant of burglary, robbery with use of a deadly weapon, and two counts of attempted sexual assault with use of a deadly weapon, based on evidence that he entered a store, threatened two women with a knife, took money, and attempted to sexually assault one of them. Franklin appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing his requested jury instruction on his constitutional right not to testify and by admitting evidence of his refusal to answer one question during a police interview. The court held that both actions constituted error—the first under the recent Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Kentucky, which applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review, and the second as an improper comment on the defendant's silence—but concluded that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the limited impact of the issues. The court therefore affirmed the convictions without addressing the defendant's other claims.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned a negligence claim by motel guests Helen and Kenneth Montgomery, who were assaulted and robbed in their room at the Royal Motel after failing to lock the door, which was equipped with an operable deadbolt but not a self-locking mechanism. The trial court granted summary judgment to the motel, finding it had met its duty by complying with Las Vegas municipal ordinance 4-10-2, which required deadbolt locks on units with individual entrances but did not mandate self-locking doors. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance established the applicable standard of conduct and that, in the absence of special circumstances such as prior incidents or known threats, compliance satisfied the motel's legal duty as a matter of law. The court further reasoned that the sudden criminal act by an unknown assailant constituted an unforeseeable intervening force, and the plaintiffs had not presented facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial under NRCP 56.

torts & liability

The case involved a dispute between competing barite mining companies over mineral rights on property in Nevada, where Eisenman Chemical sought to condemn interests held by NL Industries and The 25 Corporation to extract ore immediately. The district court granted Eisenman immediate and exclusive occupancy under NRS 37.100 pending the condemnation action, finding its mining activities a more necessary public use. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that eminent domain cannot be used to condemn property already devoted to a legitimate mining purpose when the proposed use would destroy or seriously interfere with the existing mining use, as the statutes do not authorize such condemnation.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between homeowners in the Frost Ranches Subdivision over enforcement of a Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, Easements and Reservations. The Tracys obtained a preliminary injunction to stop the Capozzis from building without written approval from two members of the Architectural Committee, but after a trial the court dissolved the injunction and limited damages to the $5,000 security bond posted by the Tracys. The court found that the Tracys had themselves violated the same approval requirements by moving a pre-built house onto their lot without the required signatures, barring equitable relief under the unclean hands doctrine. On the cross-appeal, the court held that damages from a good-faith injunction could not exceed the bond amount when the enjoined party had not sought an increase during the litigation, as permitted by court rules. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in full.

propertyprocedure

In Turner v. State, the defendant was retried and convicted of first-degree murder after his initial conviction was reversed on appeal; the prosecution introduced his prior trial testimony claiming self-defense, along with his post-arrest statement, even though he did not testify at the second trial. The court ruled that the prior testimony was admissible in the state's case-in-chief as a non-hearsay party admission because it was relevant and inconsistent with the self-defense claim, and that evidence of the defendant's flight and disposal of weapons had probative value in showing consciousness of guilt. On the separate claim of an improper jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for self-defense, the court found no reversible error because the defendant had not objected at trial and failed to demonstrate cause or prejudice. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by an employee of D & C Builders who was injured in a motorcycle accident while en route to buy construction staples, on a trip that also included a personal visit to a friend. After the Nevada Industrial Commission denied the claim and an appeals officer ruled the trip was primarily personal, the district court reversed and awarded benefits. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, adopting a "bona fide business purpose" test under which recovery is allowed if the trip had a legitimate business component even when combined with personal motives. The court found the appeals officer's decision clearly erroneous because the evidence showed the employee would not have made the trip without the business errand and was pursuing that errand at the time of the injury.

labor & employmentprocedure