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

In Isom v. State, the appellant appealed her third conviction for driving under the influence within seven years, arguing she was not in actual physical control of her vehicle because she was asleep when discovered and that the state provided insufficient evidence of her prior convictions to support a felony sentence. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Isom was in actual physical control as she was found in the driver's seat with the engine running after having driven on a public highway and attempted to restart the car upon waking. The court further concluded that the state's presentation of citations, pleas, and related records sufficiently proved the two prior DUI offenses from 1982 and 1984 for sentencing purposes under state law.

criminal law

James R. Ransier filed a workers' compensation claim with the State Industrial Insurance System for a 1984 knee injury sustained at work as a carpenter. The appeals officer apportioned his benefits between the 1984 injury and a pre-existing osteoarthritic condition from a 1960 knee surgery, reducing the award by half, and the district court affirmed. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the apportionment, concluding that substantial evidence from physicians supported dividing the impairment under Nevada Administrative Code provisions on pre-existing conditions even without historical records. The court reversed the portion of the judgment permitting SIIS to recoup $19,655.56 in overpaid benefits, holding that Chapter 616 of the Nevada Revised Statutes provides no authority for such recovery of funds paid pending appeal.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Flanagan v. State, a jury convicted Dale Edward Flanagan of the first-degree murders of his grandparents, whom he and co-defendants killed in 1984 to obtain insurance proceeds and an inheritance, and imposed a death sentence. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding overwhelming evidence of guilt and that any prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt phase was not prejudicial enough to require reversal. However, the court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty hearing, holding that the prosecutor's improper remarks at sentencing—including appeals to the jury's passions, references to the defendant's likely future killings, and comments on improbable rehabilitation—violated established precedent and risked influencing the jury by arbitrary factors. The opinion emphasized that such comments are especially inappropriate when a life is at stake and that the misconduct warranted review despite delayed objections.

criminal lawprocedure

In Houk v. State, the appellant Delores Houk, a repeat offender with a history of check-related crimes, pleaded guilty to three counts of issuing checks on closed accounts and two counts of uttering forged instruments after causing victims losses of about $35,000 through multiple fraudulent schemes while on bail. She received five consecutive ten-year prison sentences totaling fifty years and appealed, arguing that the punishment violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment as grossly disproportionate under Solem v. Helm. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that a term within statutory limits does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless it is disproportionate in a manner shocking to the conscience, and that this case did not meet that standard. The court noted that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the repeated offenses and the defendant's prior record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case consolidated appeals from Nevada district court orders enforcing child support obligations under the state's Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). The parties disputed whether district courts had jurisdiction in such proceedings to modify the amount of support payments required by prior decrees from other states. The court held that RURESA actions are limited to enforcing pre-existing support duties and do not authorize modification of prior orders, particularly after the 1981 amendment deleted language permitting such changes. The reasoning centered on the statute's text, including NRS 130.280, its purpose of facilitating enforcement without altering duties, and the requirement to interpret it uniformly with other states.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a patient's lawsuit against her obstetrician-gynecologist for alleged negligence during a hysterectomy and oophorectomy, claiming the doctor incised her bladder and closed her ureter, requiring further surgery. The doctor denied negligence, asserted he met the applicable standard of care, and moved for summary judgment supported by his own affidavit. The lower court granted summary judgment, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit was defective under NRCP 56(e) because it contained inadmissible generalizations rather than facts showing no genuine issue of material fact, and the rest of the undeveloped record provided no basis for summary judgment. The court reasoned that without a properly supported motion, the plaintiff had no duty to produce expert evidence to avoid summary judgment.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Eaton, Chrystal Eaton sued the State of Nevada for personal injuries and the wrongful death of her infant daughter Amber after a car accident on a slick black ice patch of Interstate 80, where her husband was driving and the State had received prior reports of the hazard but failed to warn or sand the road. A jury awarded Eaton damages, which the district court largely upheld after adjustments for interest. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the liability finding and damages calculation, holding that the State had a duty to remedy or warn of known highway dangers and was not protected by discretionary immunity. However, the court reversed on the emotional distress claim, ruling that Eaton should have been permitted to present her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to the jury under foreseeability standards from Dillon v. Legg. The matter was remanded for a separate trial on that issue, with any award subject to statutory caps.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of a 13-year-old girl who died after suffering a respiratory arrest while recovering from spinal surgery at Sunrise Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that hospital nurses failed to properly monitor the patient after she received a large dose of morphine in the recovery room, in violation of both the hospital's own procedures and general nursing standards. The trial court excluded key expert testimony on the standard of care under the locality rule and certain hospital records, resulting in a judgment for the hospital. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the locality rule does not apply to hospitals and that a national standard of care governs such cases, and remanded for a new trial with instructions to admit the excluded evidence.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the conviction of John Oliver Snow for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon in the shooting death of Harry Wham, for which the jury imposed the death penalty after finding three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. Snow appealed on multiple grounds, including challenges to jury selection, evidentiary rulings on hearsay and identification testimony, prosecutorial comments, and the proportionality of the death sentence. The Nevada Supreme Court examined each assignment of error under applicable state statutes and precedents but determined that none had sufficient merit to require reversal of the judgment or sentence. The court therefore affirmed Snow's convictions and death penalty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jimmy Neuschafer, an inmate at Nevada State Prison serving a life sentence without parole for prior murders, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder after strangling fellow inmate Johnnie Johnson in August 1981. At the penalty hearing, the jury found three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances and imposed the death penalty. Neuschafer appealed, raising three assignments of error regarding the trial proceedings, and also challenged the proportionality of the death sentence by comparing it to sentences in similar prison murder cases. The court reviewed the evidence, including witness accounts, notes written by Neuschafer, and physical findings, and concluded that none of the claimed errors required reversal. It affirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding the penalty proportionate given Neuschafer's criminal history and circumstances.

criminal law

The case involved appellant Thomas Nevius, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, burglary, robbery, and attempted sexual assault, all with use of a deadly weapon, arising from a 1980 home invasion in Las Vegas that resulted in the shooting death of David Kinnamon. At the penalty phase, the jury found four aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, imposing a death sentence. On appeal, Nevius raised multiple assignments of error concerning issues such as eyewitness identification, jury instructions on mitigating factors, peremptory challenges, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict under both premeditation and felony-murder theories. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the record, including trial testimony from the victim's wife and accomplices, physical evidence linking Nevius to the crimes, and rebuttal evidence, and concluded that none of the claimed errors warranted reversal. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and death sentence.

criminal law

In Summitt v. State, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault involving cunnilingus and fellatio against a six-year-old victim. The trial court excluded defense evidence of a prior sexual incident involving the same victim two years earlier, which included similar acts, ruling that Nevada's rape shield statute (NRS 50.090) barred such testimony. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the statute could not be applied to exclude relevant evidence showing the victim's independent knowledge of the acts, as this would violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and present a defense. The court reasoned that while rape shield laws serve important purposes, they must yield when they conflict with constitutional protections, and the evidence was probative on whether the victim's testimony reflected actual events or prior knowledge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a product liability claim by Elizabeth Stackiewicz against Nissan Motor Corp. and a car dealer after she was injured in a rollover accident allegedly caused by a steering defect in her new Datsun B210, which had been driven only 2,400 miles. The jury found for the plaintiff on strict liability and awarded $3.775 million in damages, but the trial court granted Nissan's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and conditionally ordered a remittitur reducing the award. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the JNOV, holding that circumstantial evidence of a defect (including expert testimony that a defect need not be physically identified) was sufficient to support the verdict, reinstated the full jury award as not excessive given the plaintiff's permanent paraplegia, affirmed the dismissal of the dealer, and rejected the remittitur and cross-appeal for a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a long-serving school principal who was dismissed by the Clark County School District for insubordination after taking ten days of previously accumulated leave to meet his son returning from a religious mission, despite a recent policy change limiting such leave and the denial of his request. The court reversed the district court's affirmance of the dismissal and remanded for imposition of a lesser penalty. The core reasoning was that legal cause for removal of a public employee requires something of a substantial nature directly affecting the office, and a single unauthorized absence—where no harm to students or the school occurred, advance preparations were made, and the employee had over twenty years of service—did not meet the definition of insubordination warranting dismissal.

labor & employment