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

In Chavez v. Sievers, the plaintiff, an at-will employee at a company with fewer than fifteen workers, alleged he was terminated due to racial discrimination and brought claims including tortious discharge and a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants, declining to recognize a common-law tortious discharge action for race-based employment discrimination. The court reasoned that the legislature had expressly limited the statutory remedy in NRS 613.330(1) to employers with fifteen or more employees, that 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) does not cover such employment claims, and that attorney fees were properly awarded under the offer-of-judgment rules.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition filed by Northwest Pipe Company challenging a Nevada district court order that Nevada law would govern wrongful death claims arising from a multi-vehicle accident in California, in which concrete pipes fell from a company truck and killed six people. Most plaintiffs were Nevada residents, while the defendant was an Oregon corporation and some decedents were California residents. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Under the choice-of-law framework from Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., the law of the forum (Nevada) is presumed to apply unless two or more specified factors demonstrate that another state has an overwhelming interest; here only one factor favored California, while the compensable injury to the survivors occurred primarily in Nevada.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved appellant Robert Paul Servin, who at age 16 participated with two co-defendants in the robbery and murder of a paralyzed woman in her home after they ingested drugs and broke in armed with guns. Servin was tried jointly with one co-defendant, convicted of the crimes, and sentenced to death by the district court, while the third co-defendant received life sentences. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions after finding no reversible errors in the guilt phase. However, after mandatory review of the death sentence under NRS 177.055(2), the court concluded the penalty was excessive given the circumstances, including Servin's youth as the minimum age eligible for capital punishment in Nevada, and therefore vacated the death sentence, imposing consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole instead.

criminal law

The case involved petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the Legislative Counsel Bureau to enroll two assembly bills passed by the Nevada Legislature on June 5, 2001, after midnight Pacific daylight saving time but before 1 a.m., challenging whether this violated the constitutional deadline of 120 days ending at midnight Pacific standard time. The Nevada Supreme Court granted the writs, holding that the legislative actions were timely and constitutional. The court reasoned that because daylight saving time was in effect, which advances the clock by one hour from standard time, the constitutional reference to midnight Pacific standard time corresponds to 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time, allowing the bills to be considered passed before the deadline.

procedure

The case concerned whether one spouse could convey an interest in jointly held homestead property without the other's knowledge or consent, and whether delay in bringing suit barred recovery. After Simon Besnilian deeded his share of the homesteaded joint-tenancy property to third parties without Glenda Besnilian's knowledge, she sued to quiet title; the district court initially ruled the conveyance void but later held her claim barred by laches. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state constitution prohibits alienation of homestead property without joint consent and that laches did not apply because the respondents suffered no actual prejudice from lost records irrelevant to the legal issue. The core reasoning rested on the constitutional text, the protective purpose of homestead laws, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice from delay.

propertyfamily law

This case involved a psychiatrist whose hospital staff privileges were revoked after he reported concerns about patient care, staffing policies, and other practices to external agencies like JCAHO and a state medical board. The dispute centered on whether the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act provided immunity to the hospital and related parties against the doctor's state tort and contract claims arising from the revocation. The court held that the doctor had rebutted the presumption of immunity under the Act by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the revocation was not undertaken with a reasonable belief that it furthered quality health care. As a result, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on immunity grounds and remanded the case for further proceedings.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved Siaosi Vanisi, who was charged with the first-degree murder of University of Nevada, Reno police sergeant George Sullivan, along with related robbery and theft offenses. After a mistrial in the first proceeding, a jury at the second trial convicted Vanisi on all counts and imposed a death sentence. On appeal, the primary claim was that the trial court improperly denied Vanisi's request to represent himself. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected that argument along with Vanisi's other challenges, holding that denial of self-representation was proper under the circumstances and affirming both the convictions and the death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Gerald Gallego's appeal from his second penalty hearing, where he was again sentenced to death for the 1980 first-degree murders and kidnappings of two teenage girls in Nevada. Gallego argued that the district court erred by denying his requests to represent himself and for substitute counsel after being found competent, among other claimed errors at the hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences, holding that none of the assignments of error, including the denial of self-representation under the Sixth Amendment, warranted relief because the requests were properly denied on grounds such as potential delay or equivocation. The court reasoned that the aggravating circumstances were proven and outweighed any mitigation, with no reversible procedural or evidentiary mistakes in the resentencing process.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim by the family of Douglas Adams against State Farm Insurance to recover uninsured motorist benefits after Adams died in a car accident allegedly caused in part by an unknown driver who dropped a ladder on the highway. A jury returned a verdict for State Farm, and the district court denied the family's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court held that the evidence did not support a standard res ipsa loquitur instruction due to evidence of Adams' own potential negligence but concluded that the doctrine, adapted to Nevada's comparative negligence rules, should have been presented to the jury. The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with that determination, without addressing other claims that had been severed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Joseph Canterino suing The Mirage Casino-Hotel for damages after he was beaten and robbed in a hotel hallway while staying as a guest, alleging the hotel's negligence in security. A jury found the Mirage liable and awarded over $5.7 million in damages for injuries including neurological damage and psychological issues, but the district court deemed the award excessive, ordered a remittitur to $1.5 million or a new trial, and Canterino rejected the reduced amount. The Nevada Supreme Court reinstated the jury's liability verdict but ordered a new trial on damages, reasoning that the district court abused its discretion in reducing damages without conflicting evidence on injury extent and that an improper jury instruction on deliberations, given without notice to counsel, warranted retrial on damages only.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Hollaway v. State, the defendant strangled his wife during a drunken argument, called 911 to report the crime, was charged with first-degree murder, and sought the death penalty while representing himself at trial without offering any defense or mitigating evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the conviction but, after mandatory review of the death sentence, vacated it and remanded for a new penalty hearing. The majority concluded that the sentence had been imposed under the influence of prejudicial and arbitrary factors, despite rejecting the defendant's other appellate challenges as meritless. Dissenting justices argued that a remand would be futile given the defendant's consistent desire for death and lack of mitigating evidence.

criminal law

The case concerned Richard Chen, a blackjack player, who used a false passport to obtain casino chips at the Monte Carlo Resort & Casino and won $40,400; the casino sought to withhold the winnings after discovering the fake identification, leading the Nevada Gaming Control Board to deny Chen the funds on reconsideration. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of Chen's petition for judicial review. The court held that the Board’s decision was contrary to law because the casino failed to establish all elements of fraud, specifically detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation or proximate causation of damages. The identification was required only for regulatory compliance with currency transaction reporting, not to identify card counters, and Chen’s winnings resulted from his skill rather than the false passport. The court remanded with instructions to direct the Board to award Chen the winnings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case Byford v. State involved the 1991 murder of Monica Wilkins, for which Robert Byford and a codefendant were charged and retried after an earlier reversal. Evidence at the second trial showed that Byford, Williams, and Smith drove Wilkins to the desert, where Williams shot her multiple times and Byford then shot her in the head before burning the body, based in part on testimony from Smith and others. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Byford's murder conviction and death sentence, concluding that none of the grounds raised on appeal, including issues with jury instructions on malice, premeditation, and deliberation, warranted relief.

criminal law

The case involved a medical malpractice claim by Richard Hansen against Dr. John Thalgott and Valley Hospital, alleging negligence in a spinal plate fixation surgery that led to a severe infection requiring multiple operations and over $700,000 in medical expenses. A jury ruled in favor of the defendants, and Hansen appealed, contending the district court erred by excluding evidence that the procedure lacked FDA approval and a State Industrial Insurance System survey of complications in the doctor's other patients. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the lack of FDA approval did not alter the applicable negligence standard and that admitting it or the survey would confuse the jury, with both exclusions falling within the district court's discretion. The court reasoned that the FDA had approved the device for other uses and did not prohibit its implantation, while the survey involved collateral issues that could divert attention from the core causation questions.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare