John Code Mowbray

In Dutt v. Kremp, an attorney who filed and then voluntarily dismissed a medical malpractice suit on behalf of a client was sued by the defendant physicians for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The trial court submitted the question of probable cause to the jury, which returned a verdict for the physicians. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the existence of probable cause is a legal question for the court when the underlying facts are undisputed, and that the attorney's investigation—including review of medical records and consultation with another lawyer—established probable cause as a matter of law. The court further found no evidence supporting liability for wrongfully continuing the action after receiving an adverse expert report.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Curtis Guy, who was driving a car with his friend Larry Pendleton when they picked up Ceasor Evans to help purchase cocaine; after the buy, they attempted to drive off without giving Evans his share, and when Evans clung to the car, Pendleton shot him three times, leading to his death. Guy was charged with and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, either as an aider and abettor or under a felony murder theory based on robbery, and sentenced to death after the penalty phase found multiple aggravating circumstances and no mitigators. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported robbery because the illegal drugs could still be the subject of a crime against possession, and upheld the death sentence based on the established aggravators. The court also addressed and rejected various challenges to evidentiary rulings, including hearsay exceptions during the trial.

criminal law

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the families of two teenagers killed in a car accident against Washoe County and a deputy sheriff. The deputy had stopped an intoxicated 19-year-old driver for speeding, administered a failed sobriety test, cited him for speeding without arrest, ordered him to park his car, and arranged for his mother to pick him up before leaving the scene; the driver later resumed driving and caused the fatal collision. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the county defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing the deputy had affirmatively caused the harm under NRS 41.0336(2). The court reasoned that the public duty doctrine generally shields police from individual liability unless an officer actively creates a dangerous situation leading directly to the injury, which did not occur here because the deputy's actions did not force or directly produce the driver's resumption of driving.

torts & liability

The case concerned Norma Beales, a long-term nursing home administrator, who sued her employer Hillhaven after being placed on probation for failing to meet performance targets on nursing hours and accounts receivable, leading to her resignation under pressure in June 1986. Beales claimed the termination violated the company's employee handbook and management objective forms (MBOs), which she argued formed part of her employment contract and required specific steps like feedback and time for improvement before performance-based discharge. The jury found the resignation involuntary and awarded her past compensatory damages of about $32,800 plus future damages of over $208,000. The court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that Hillhaven had not followed its own policies for performance terminations and that the MBOs constituted a binding agreement between the parties.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Edward Lee Beets, who was convicted after breaking into his ex-girlfriend Vanita Hames' home, attacking her and her 71-year-old mother Oretha with a hammer, killing Oretha, sexually assaulting Vanita, and sexually assaulting Vanita's seven-year-old daughter Nicole. Beets was found guilty by a jury on all counts, including first-degree murder with a deadly weapon of a victim over 65, attempted murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, mayhem, and burglary. After the jury deadlocked in the penalty phase, a three-judge panel reviewed the record, found four aggravating circumstances and no mitigating ones, and imposed the death sentence. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the three-judge panel procedure for capital sentencing when a jury cannot reach a verdict is constitutional under state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent such as Spaziano v. Florida. The opinion also rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of motions to dismiss certain charges.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gaitor v. State, two defendants were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery after a victim was assaulted and robbed in a Las Vegas parking lot; the trial followed a mistrial in the first proceeding and involved eyewitness identifications from a lineup and in court. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the mistrial did not violate double jeopardy protections because it was supported by manifest necessity after a juror observed a witness in handcuffs and because defense counsel implied consent by remaining silent. The court also rejected challenges to the pretrial identifications, noting the lack of any contemporaneous objection or showing of suggestiveness and the availability of cross-examination, and found sufficient evidence of conspiracy based on the coordinated actions of the two assailants approaching and robbing the victim together before fleeing. The opinion addressed related issues including habitual criminal sentencing but upheld the jury verdicts on both counts.

criminal lawprocedure