Frank McNamee

This case involved petitioners who pleaded guilty to robbery and were sentenced, after which the victim died from his injuries, leading to their indictment for murder committed during the robbery. Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, claiming former jeopardy barred the murder prosecution. The court vacated the alternative writ and dismissed the proceeding, ruling that robbery and murder are separate and distinct offenses under NRS 174.390, so the prior conviction does not bar the later charge. The core reasoning was that the majority rule permits separate prosecutions for the two crimes arising from the same act, particularly when the death occurs after the robbery conviction, and neither crime is included in the other under merger principles.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with first-degree burglary in Clark County who challenged proceedings after the information was amended to add a manslaughter charge and delete certain language, without a new arraignment, and after denials of his motions for change of venue. The court held that the trial court improperly ordered the defendant to trial on the amended information without re-arraignment, as the changes were material and implicated statutory rights to plea, demurrer, and trial preparation time. It further ruled that an appeal from the denial of a change of venue does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed, because the appeal concerns only the fairness of the venue rather than the merits of guilt or innocence, and allowing otherwise would permit endless delays. The court annulled the order to proceed without arraignment and dismissed the petition for a writ of prohibition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a wife suing her husband for damages from personal injuries sustained in a car collision allegedly caused by his gross negligence while driving. The trial court dismissed the action, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The majority held that the common-law rule of interspousal immunity for personal torts, as established in Kennedy v. Kennedy, continues to apply in Nevada because statutes such as NRS 12.020 and NRS 41.170 do not authorize such suits, and any change must come from the legislature. The dissent argued that the rule should be abandoned to align with modern trends in other states and to facilitate settlements in multi-vehicle negligence cases.

family lawtorts & liability

The case concerned a creditor's efforts to collect on an uncontested judgment by levying execution on a debtor's casino wages on two separate occasions. The debtor moved to release the garnished amounts as exempt wages, but asserted the claim 48 days after the first levy (after the funds had already been delivered to the creditor) and 11 days after the second levy (before the funds were paid over). The court determined that the exemption right is a personal privilege that is waived if not timely asserted, finding the first claim untimely and thus waived while deeming the second claim timely. It therefore modified the lower court's order to require return of only the second levied sum and affirmed the order as modified.

procedurepropertylabor & employment

This case involved an action by Nevada Transit Co. against Harris Brothers Lumber Co. seeking damages for negligent repair of a motor vehicle. The defendant moved to change venue from Churchill County to Washoe County, its county of residence, without first filing a written demand as required by statute. The trial court denied the motion, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that NRS 13.050 requires a written demand for change of venue to the proper county before any such motion can be considered and that the supporting affidavit was insufficient to justify a discretionary change based on witness convenience.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between the surviving partner Dudrey and the estate of deceased partner Mayme Smith over the purchase of her interest in their motel business under their partnership agreement. After a prior remand to determine the market value of partnership assets, the trial court entered a money judgment for the estate that included pre-judgment interest at 4 percent from the date of death plus post-judgment interest at 7 percent on the total due. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the amount owed was not ascertainable until judgment because it required an audit under the agreement, so no interest accrued before judgment; it modified the judgment to apply 7 percent interest only from the judgment date on the amount then due and to require 4 percent interest on the remaining principal balance from the judgment date onward, while affirming the $250 monthly principal installments. The court construed the agreement to require separate monthly interest payments on the unpaid balance in addition to principal payments.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure