Thomas L. Steffen

This case concerned the termination of parental rights of Michele Jean Deck, the mother of Christy Amber Deck, who was placed under guardianship due to paranoid schizophrenia, and William Dupree, the putative father. The district court granted termination after years of monitoring showed limited compliance with a reunification plan requiring counseling, medication, support payments, and visits. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established failure of parental adjustment and unfitness under NRS 128.105, as the parents did not substantially correct the conditions leading to the child's removal despite state efforts, and termination was in the child's best interests. The court emphasized the mother's inconsistent engagement and the father's minimal involvement and ongoing issues.

family law

The case concerned Yvette Farmer, a white female sociology professor, who sued the University and Community College System of Nevada after it hired a black male professor at a higher salary under an unwritten minority bonus affirmative action policy aimed at addressing racial imbalances in faculty hiring. Farmer alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act for unequal pay for equal work, Title VII race and gender discrimination, and breach of her employment contract. A jury awarded her $40,000 in damages, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment. The court held that the race-conscious policy did not violate Title VII because it remedied a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category without unnecessarily trampling the rights of others, and the pay differential was justified by qualifications and market factors.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Kriseya J. Labastida, whose seven-week-old infant died from extensive injuries inflicted by the child's father, with whom she cohabited. Labastida was acquitted of first-degree murder and child abuse but convicted of second-degree murder and child neglect, resulting in a life sentence plus a consecutive twenty-year term. She appealed, arguing her convictions were invalid due to lack of knowledge of the abuse and errors in jury instructions. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Labastida received a fair trial and was properly found guilty under the applicable standards for second-degree murder based on implied malice.

criminal law

In Evans v. State, Vernell Ray Evans was convicted by a jury of burglary and four counts of first-degree murder arising from the 1992 shooting deaths of four victims in a Las Vegas apartment, and he received four death sentences along with a consecutive prison term for the burglary. On direct appeal, Evans challenged numerous aspects of the trial including jury instructions on reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances, the admission of certain evidence and witness testimony, prosecutorial comments during the penalty phase, and the sufficiency of the aggravating circumstances supporting the death sentences. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in full, concluding that the evidence supported the aggravating factors, that no prejudicial errors occurred in the guilt or penalty phases, and that the death sentences were not the product of passion, prejudice, or arbitrariness under the mandatory review required by NRS 177.055.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Geiger's conviction for burglary after his fingerprint was found on a window screen pried off at the point of entry to a home from which money was stolen. Geiger argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the district court clerk's inadvertent reading of language from the information referencing his prior burglary conviction prejudiced the jury, despite the judge's admonition to disregard it. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the fingerprint evidence, combined with testimony that Geiger had no permission to be at the home, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further concluded that the judge's instruction cured any potential prejudice from the clerk's statement, and it affirmed the burglary conviction while upholding the habitual criminal adjudication and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Nevada seeking to terminate Cherrel Montgomery's parental rights to her young daughter Vanessa after repeated incidents of neglect tied to the mother's alcohol abuse, including leaving the child unsupervised and being intoxicated while responsible for her care. The district court granted termination, determining that the mother's condition was irremediable based on prior relapses and that it served the child's best interests given two years of instability and her need for a secure environment. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the order, concluding that the district court lacked both the required jurisdictional grounds under state statutes and sufficient evidence of unfitness or failure to adjust, as the mother had substantially complied with a reunification plan involving counseling, treatment, and monitoring.

family law

This case involved an insurance dispute in which Guaranty National Insurance Company (GNIC) required its policyholders, the Potters, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) as part of an underinsured motorist claim and was contractually obligated to pay for those exams. After delays and confusion over authorization for additional tests costing about $6,500, the providers billed the Potters directly, leading to collection efforts and a lawsuit; the Potters then sued GNIC for bad faith handling of the claim. The district court found GNIC liable and awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages plus $1,000,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the compensatory awards, concluding that GNIC's delay in payment constituted bad faith, but reduced the punitive damages to $250,000 as excessive under the facts. The core reasoning focused on GNIC's contractual duty to pay promptly for the IMEs and its failure to resolve the billing dispute without involving the insureds.

torts & liability

The case concerned Brian Simmons's appeal of his jury convictions for first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, burglary, and possession of an explosive device in the shooting death of Jason Kopack. Simmons challenged the convictions on Fourth and Sixth Amendment grounds and argued that his motion for a new trial should have been granted because the State suppressed favorable evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Simmons's constitutional claims lacked merit and that no suppressed evidence warranted retrial. The court reasoned that the search of Simmons's home was supported by a valid warrant, the recorded phone conversation with a consenting witness was properly authorized, and the undisclosed neighbor interview did not meet the standard for requiring a new trial.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

John Martin sued his former employer Sears for wrongful termination after being investigated for diverting funds from a restitution account to inflate maintenance agreement sales and win a company contest; when offered a demotion or resignation, he chose to resign and claimed constructive discharge. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Sears. The court reasoned that the demotion offer did not create intolerable conditions violating public policy, so no constructive discharge occurred. It further held that Martin remained an at-will employee whose agreement to follow company rules and the employee handbook did not create an enforceable contract limiting termination to for-cause only.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether Lawrence Schlang had timely "incurred" lifetime expenses for a CPAP breathing machine under the medical payments clause of his auto insurance policy, which limited coverage to expenses incurred within three years of a 1987 accident. The district court ruled that a requirements contract Schlang signed with a medical supplier before the deadline bound him to pay, entitling him to future payments up to the remaining policy limit plus attorney fees. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the writing created only a conditional arrangement rather than a firm legal obligation to pay, so the expenses were not incurred within the policy period under the prevailing legal definition requiring actual payment or unconditional liability. The court dismissed related bad-faith and punitive-damage claims on summary judgment.

business & regulatory

This case involved Nevada District Judge Jerry Carr Whitehead's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline's handling of misconduct allegations against him. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition in part, issuing a writ that prohibited the Commission from exceeding its jurisdiction and mandated that it follow uniform procedures in this and future cases consistent with the state constitution and the Administrative and Procedural Rules for Judicial Discipline (ARJD). The court's core reasoning centered on the Commission's failure to adhere to specific ARJD requirements, such as proper oath and authorization for complaints, limits on initiating proceedings, and the need for consistent application of rules across all judges, including in preliminary investigations and probable cause hearings. The opinion emphasized that deviations from these rules, including improper expansions of investigations and breaches of confidentiality, violated the governing framework and threatened judicial independence.

procedure

The case concerned whether Nevada's NRS 201.020, which makes it a crime for a parent to persistently fail to provide support and maintenance for minor children, is unconstitutionally vague. After the district court dismissed felony charges against respondent David Vlasak on vagueness grounds, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute is constitutional. The court reasoned that terms such as "support" and "persistent" carry well-settled, ordinary meanings when read in context, providing fair notice to persons of common intelligence and sufficient guidance to law enforcement, especially where a court-ordered support amount from a divorce decree exists. The opinion noted that the statute does not require impossible precision and is presumed valid absent a clear showing of unconstitutionality.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved Milton Schwartz, an officer of cab companies, suing the Las Vegas Sun newspaper and the Greenspun family for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress over five articles criticizing the safety of a propane tank fueling the cabs and alleging improper governmental approvals. After a trial where the jury returned a defense verdict, the district court excluded Schwartz's expert witness on media content analysis, denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute under NRCP 41(e), and awarded the defendants attorney's fees and costs based on a rejected offer of judgment. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed these rulings, holding that the expert testimony was irrelevant because the plaintiff failed to prove any elements of defamation, that the fee award was proper under the offer-of-judgment statutes, and that the denial of dismissal did not require reversal given the procedural timeline calculations. The court focused on evidentiary relevance and application of civil procedure rules without reaching the merits of the public-figure or malice issues.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a divorce after a 27-year childless marriage in which the district court divided community property and awarded the wife temporary rehabilitative alimony of $1,300 per month for one year and $1,000 per month for a second year to allow her to pursue additional education and equalize incomes, after which alimony would end absent changed circumstances. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the limited duration and amount were insufficient given the wife's support of the husband's career advancement, the resulting disparity in earning capacity ($75,000 versus $43,000), and the length of the marriage. The court remanded for an award of additional, longer-term spousal support that better recognized these factors while retaining the district court's jurisdiction for future review.

family law

This case involved a dispute between real estate broker Terry Fields and Flamingo Realty and property owner Midwest Development over a commission for the sale of a Las Vegas parcel. Fields had a short-term nonexclusive listing agreement that expired without a completed sale under its terms, after which Midwest sold the property to Torosan, which resold it to Fields' prospective buyer; Fields sued for breach of contract, fraud, and fraudulent conveyance, while Torosan countersued for fees. The district court rejected the contract and fraud claims, finding no ready buyer under the agreement and insufficient proof of wrongdoing, but awarded Fields quantum meruit recovery for her services valued at an hourly rate totaling $107,688. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the measure of damages under quantum meruit, affirming the trial court's discretion to use an hourly calculation rather than a percentage of sale price based on evidence of services rendered, while also upholding the award of fees to Torosan under statute for a meritless suit.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Jenkins v. State, appellant Kevin Jenkins was convicted of six counts of statutory sexual seduction based on sexual acts with two girls aged 14 and 15. He appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in refusing jury instructions on a reasonable mistake-of-fact defense as to the victims' ages. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that statutory sexual seduction is a general-intent offense for which the state need only prove the defendant intended the sexual acts with minors and not that he knew their ages. The core reasoning was that the statute imposes liability without requiring knowledge of the victims' minority as an element, making a mistake-of-age defense unavailable.

criminal law

The case involved Paul Robert Heglemeier, who was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit robbery, attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, and first-degree murder with a deadly weapon stemming from a 1988 armed robbery at a Las Vegas lounge where a patron was killed. Heglemeier appealed, primarily challenging the sufficiency of evidence to corroborate his accomplice's testimony, along with other issues. The court reviewed the facts, including witness statements, informant tips, prison records, and ballistics evidence linking the weapons, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. It therefore affirmed the convictions on all counts.

criminal law

The case involved a challenge by the State of Nevada to a district court order suppressing evidence of marijuana and drug paraphernalia seized from the Millers' apartment. A 12-year-old babysitter, concerned about suspected drug activity, called police who arrived and, after being invited in by the babysitter, asked her to retrieve a bag containing what she believed were drugs; the officer seized the items and the Millers later arrived. The district court suppressed the evidence on grounds that the search was nonconsensual, involved the babysitter acting as a police agent, and lacked a warrant. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the lower court had erred in its assessment of consent and authorization for the warrantless search.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a 1984 default judgment for medical malpractice could be renewed by affidavit more than six years after entry, after the judgment creditor's attempts to collect were affected by the debtor's two unsuccessful Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings. The district court denied the debtor's motion to terminate a receivership over his assets, effectively preserving the judgment despite the late renewal filing. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the automatic stay did not bar the ministerial act of renewing the judgment and that equitable tolling applied to extend the limitations period under NRS 11.190 and 17.214 given the circumstances of the bankruptcies and the creditor's reliance interests. The core reasoning focused on federal bankruptcy precedent that renewal does not violate the stay, the limited tolling effect of 11 U.S.C. § 108(c), and equitable factors from prior Nevada case law that excused the untimely affidavit.

proceduretorts & liability

In Pearson v. Pearson, a divorced couple disputed permanent physical custody of their two children after a temporary order was issued as part of the 1990 divorce decree. The district court awarded primary physical custody to the father based on reports from the parties and a psychological evaluation, without providing the mother notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the custody order and remanded the case to the family court for a redetermination of custody, reasoning that due process requires that a party facing loss of parental rights must receive notice and the chance to challenge the evidence presented against them.

family lawprocedure