Miriam C. Shearing

The case involved disciplinary charges against Judge Donald M. Mosley for multiple alleged violations of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, including improper use of judicial letterhead in personal matters related to a custody dispute, ex parte communications in criminal cases, and conflicts of interest. The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline found violations in seven counts and imposed discipline consisting of an ethics course, a $5,000 fine, and censures. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the record under a clear and convincing evidence standard and affirmed the Commission's findings on all counts except two involving ex parte communications about a defendant's release, while upholding the imposed discipline.

procedurecriminal lawfamily law

This case involved John Edward Butler, a member of a white supremacist gang, who was charged with the 1998 murders of two rival gang members in the Nevada desert after an ambush planned with accomplices. A jury convicted Butler of two counts of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon and imposed death sentences. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the guilt phase, but vacated the death sentences and remanded for a new penalty hearing due to issues in the sentencing proceedings. The court also addressed various claims regarding jury instructions, prosecutorial conduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel but found no basis to disturb the guilt verdicts.

criminal law

The case concerned the Nevada Department of Transportation's condemnation of a leased gas station property for Interstate 15 expansion, where the lessees (the Cowans) sought additional compensation via an inverse condemnation counterclaim for lost business goodwill after the State took the parcel. The court held that the inverse condemnation claim was improper because the State had already initiated formal eminent domain proceedings, and it examined whether the undivided-fee rule permitted recovery of business goodwill damages beyond the leasehold value. The core reasoning relied on prior Nevada precedent such as Clark County v. Sun State Properties, which values condemned property as unencumbered before apportioning the award among interests and generally excludes compensation for business losses like goodwill, while also addressing related issues of attorney fees and evidence admissibility.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from an incident at the Gold Coast Hotel and Casino in which security guards confronted patrons Dedric Holman and Christina Edwards, leading to physical altercations, handcuffing, alleged beatings, derogatory racial comments, and a sexual pat-down of Edwards. A jury found the guards and the casino liable for battery and false imprisonment, awarding compensatory damages to both plaintiffs plus punitive damages against individual guards and the casino corporation. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the compensatory awards and the punitive damages against the individual guards but reversed the punitive damages against the corporation. The court reasoned that the on-site security supervisor did not qualify as a managerial agent under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 909, so his authorization or ratification of the guards' conduct could not be imputed to the corporation for punitive liability purposes.

torts & liability

Denise Buchanan was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her infant sons, though two of the deaths had initially been attributed to SIDS. After a trial, she was convicted on two counts and sentenced to consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole. Buchanan appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, prejudice from the state's handling of evidence, erroneous jury instructions on premeditation and reasonable doubt, improper rebuttal evidence, and failure to instruct on an advisory acquittal. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected all claims as meritless and affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence, including witness testimony on her differential treatment of the children and medical findings inconsistent with SIDS, supported the jury's verdict.

criminal law

This case involved a divorced father's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Nevada district court's order authorizing his 15-year-old daughter's marriage to a 48-year-old man under NRS 122.025, which allows such marriages with the consent of one parent and court approval for good cause; the marriage occurred without the father's knowledge after the mother consented. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the statute's constitutionality and the district court's denial of the father's motion to annul the marriage. The court reasoned that states have broad police power to regulate marriage reasonably, that the statute does not violate substantive due process by infringing on parental rights without a compelling justification, and that procedural due process was satisfied because the father received post-authorization notice and an opportunity to be heard in the annulment proceedings. The court also noted that the daughter's marriage emancipated her under applicable law.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure