David Zenoff

This case concerns Judge Jerry Carr Whitehead's petition for extraordinary writ relief against the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline in an ongoing judicial discipline matter. The court resolved several pending motions, including the Commission's request to file an oversized rehearing petition, its motion to strike Whitehead's answer, and the petition for rehearing or amendment of the court's prior interlocutory opinion. The court denied the motion to strike and the rehearing petition, concluding that the latter was a successive and procedurally defective filing that did not identify any overlooked facts or law, while directing that the oversized document be accepted for the record only. The reasoning emphasized compliance with appellate rules, the limited scope of rehearing, and the need to clarify the court's supervisory role and prior interventions in the Commission proceedings.

procedure

This case involves a district judge's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition against the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, alleging that the Commission and its attorneys violated court-promulgated rules governing confidentiality, investigations, and proceedings. The Nevada Supreme Court explains its prior actions, including temporarily staying Commission proceedings, maintaining confidentiality, and ordering an in camera inspection of Commission records to assess whether jurisdictional excesses occurred that would warrant writ intervention. The court relies on its constitutional authority under Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which grants it appellate jurisdiction over the Commission, the power to issue writs, and the authority to promulgate rules for the Commission's governance, including confidentiality requirements. The opinion addresses disputes over compliance with these orders and the scope of the Commission's authority pending any final disciplinary decision.

procedure

This case involves a district judge petitioning the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition against the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, alleging that the Commission and its prosecutors violated rules promulgated by the Court regarding confidentiality, investigations, and proceedings. The Court explains its prior actions, including temporarily staying Commission proceedings and ordering an in camera inspection of Commission records to assess whether excesses of jurisdiction occurred that would justify intervention. The core reasoning rests on Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over the Commission, the power to promulgate rules governing its operations, and authority to issue writs necessary to exercise that jurisdiction. The opinion emphasizes that such in camera reviews are standard judicial practice to evaluate claims before broader disclosure.

procedure

The case involves appeals by former District Judge Paul S. Goldman from a district court order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the governor to appoint physicians for a disability retirement determination, and from a decision by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline removing him from office for willful misconduct and habitual intemperance. Goldman moved to disqualify Justices Young and Steffen from hearing the appeals, citing their prior involvement in an administrative order temporarily relieving him of judicial duties and related correspondence. A panel of unchallenged judges denied the disqualification motions. The court reasoned that the justices' actions stemmed from judicial and administrative proceedings rather than extrajudicial sources, provided no evidence of personal bias, and aligned with precedents requiring disqualification only for personal rather than judicially acquired impressions.

procedure

This case involved the State of Nevada petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to reinstate an original sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility against defendant Seymore Husney, who had pleaded guilty to one count of an infamous crime against nature. Husney had begun serving the sentence before filing a motion to modify it, which the district court granted after determining it had misapprehended or been misinformed about relevant sentencing information, resulting in the sentence being suspended and Husney placed on probation. The Supreme Court of Nevada declined to issue the writ. The court reasoned that under the circumstances, the district court acted within its jurisdiction to correct the sentence based on the record from the plea, presentence report, and psychiatric evaluation. The decision focused on procedural authority for sentence modification rather than the underlying facts of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

Excite Corporation applied for a business license to operate a bookstore and adult film arcade in Clark County but refused to seek required zoning approvals under then-existing code provisions, instead filing suit for declaratory and injunctive relief on constitutional grounds. After a new zoning ordinance regulating adult uses took effect in October 1979, the district court enjoined enforcement of the prior licensing and zoning scheme (which the county conceded was invalid) and issued a writ of mandamus directing the zoning administrator to approve the location under the new rules. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the injunction against the old scheme but reversed the mandamus, holding that Chapter 29.49 applied because Excite had not commenced actual operations or established a nonconforming use before the new ordinance's effective date, and a prior conditional use permit for the shopping center did not substitute for compliance with the updated requirements.

business & regulatorypropertyfree speech

The case involved Janet Emerson's conviction for forgery after she cashed a check that she claimed had been given to her by an acquaintance known as Wayne, who lacked proper identification, with her mother-in-law advising her on how to fill it out. Emerson argued on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on how to consider evidence of her good character for honesty and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the failure to provide any instruction on good character evidence was error under established precedent and that the prosecutor's comments improperly suggested the defendant bore the burden of proof, implied personal belief in guilt, and highlighted the absence of witnesses in a manner that was not harmless in this close case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved attorney disciplinary proceedings against Peter H. Burleigh, who faced accusations of conspiring to murder his former wife and burn an attorney's office, as well as violating the terms of a temporary license suspension imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court under State Bar rules. A hearing panel of the State Bar's Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board found that Burleigh had engaged in unethical conduct violating multiple disciplinary rules, recommended his disbarment along with a fine, public reprimand, and costs, but exonerated him on the arson conspiracy charge. The Nevada Supreme Court adopted the panel's findings and recommendations in full. The court rejected Burleigh's due process challenges, holding that the panel members had no personal financial interest in the outcome and were sufficiently insulated from the State Bar's finances to ensure impartiality, distinguishing the case from precedents like Tumey v. Ohio.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the Lander County commissioners' approval of a petition to hold an election on moving the county seat, where a court later found the petition lacked sufficient valid signatures. The respondent sought attorneys' fees as damages from the commissioners personally after obtaining an injunction. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the award of damages, holding that the commissioners' actions in determining the petition's sufficiency were discretionary and quasi-judicial in nature. The court reasoned that public officials are immune from personal liability for good-faith errors in judgment when performing such duties, absent any showing of bad faith, malice, or corruption.

electionstorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a sublease agreement for a restaurant in which appellant Anthony Luciano agreed to purchase respondents' interest for $110,000, made an initial payment and took possession, but withheld further down payments due to uncertainty about the remaining lease term with the master landlord. Luciano sued for specific performance or reformation of the agreement; after respondents produced documentation extending the lease, he sought to amend his complaint to request rescission, but the district court conditioned the amendment on payment of $20,000 and, when payment was not made, issued a writ of restitution returning the premises to respondents along with a $20,500 money judgment. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the money judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the record did not clearly establish the factual or legal basis for requiring both restitution of the premises and the $20,000 payment, and that implied findings could not be supplied because the trial judge had died.

propertyprocedure

The case involved two general improvement districts petitioning for writs of mandamus to compel the State Engineer to act on their applications for permits to appropriate water from Lake Tahoe. The State Engineer had declined to process the applications citing a pending federal court action over Truckee River water rights under NRS 533.370(3)(b), which permits withholding action until the litigation is final. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petitions on the grounds that the statute grants the State Engineer discretion to delay, mandamus does not lie to control discretionary acts absent manifest abuse, and disputed factual issues regarding junior applications made the district court the proper forum.

environmentprocedure

In Bushnell v. State, the defendant was convicted of robbing a Reno beauty salon based in part on testimony from his accomplice Sloan, who later recanted and claimed he had lied to avoid parole violation consequences in Texas. The trial court had restricted cross-examination of Sloan regarding his fears of returning to Texas and hopes for favorable treatment from Nevada authorities, even though no actual promises were made. The Nevada Supreme Court held that limiting such inquiry into potential bias was error, as cross-examination of an accomplice's motives must be given wide latitude, but concluded the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming physical evidence, other witness testimony, and the strength of the case against Bushnell. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In this post-divorce dispute between formerly married parties, Robert Johnson appealed a district court order that set aside his conveyance of a Las Vegas residence to his current wife Renee in order to satisfy substantial arrearages in alimony and child-support obligations owed to his former wife Patricia. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed that portion of the order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Renee was an indispensable party who should have been joined because she was the transferee of the property. The court reasoned that failure to join an indispensable party may be raised on appeal and that without joinder the order would risk subjecting parties to inconsistent obligations or divesting title without a hearing, as confirmed by the record showing Renee was never joined.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved Edward Leroy Smith, who was convicted of murdering his ex-wife and her husband by shooting them at close range with a hunting rifle under a Nevada statute defining the killing of more than one person as part of a single plan. The central issue on appeal was the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty provision in NRS 200.030(5) as applied to NRS 200.030(1)(e). Following U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Furman v. Georgia, Gregg v. Georgia, and Woodson v. North Carolina, the court ruled the statute unconstitutional because it imposed death without a bifurcated penalty hearing or consideration of mitigating circumstances related to the offense or the offender. The death sentence was vacated, and the court imposed consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for each murder.

criminal law

Michael Fitzpatrick was convicted of forcible rape and extortion after the victim testified that she submitted to intercourse and paid him money and salt because he threatened to kill her jailed fiancé unless she complied with his demands. On appeal, Fitzpatrick contended that the facts did not establish forcible rape even if the act occurred. The court affirmed both convictions, reasoning that the victim's submission resulted from credible threats to a third party, which amounted to constructive force under Nevada law, and that the jury reasonably found the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts.

criminal law

This case involved a condemnation action by the Nevada Department of Highways to acquire approximately 31 acres of a 157-acre parcel owned by Nevada Aggregates and Asphalt Company for highway widening and extension in Washoe County, where the land was actively used for sand and gravel mining. The jury awarded $1,858,100 in compensation based on expert appraisals that considered the company's existing three-phase mining plan for the condemned area. The state appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing testimony based on the mining plan and a price-per-ton valuation method, and by excluding evidence of the property's prior tax depletion value from six years earlier. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the mining plan was already implemented and generating income at the time of taking, making it a proper basis for fair market value rather than speculative future use, that the owner's testimony was admissible, and that the older tax valuation evidence was irrelevant and properly excluded.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a challenge to a due-on-sale clause in a deed of trust securing a loan on real property in Reno, Nevada. The clause required the full loan balance to become due if the property was sold without the lender's prior written consent. After an escrow agent's oversight led to a transfer without consent, the lender declared default and scheduled a trustee's sale, prompting the borrower to sue to enjoin it. The trial court upheld the clause on summary judgment, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, holding that such clauses are automatically enforceable in outright sales as ordinary contract terms, with the burden on the trustor to prove any grounds for unenforceability. The court modified the judgment only to reverse an award of attorneys' fees, finding no contractual or statutory basis for it.

property

In Privette v. Faulkner, the plaintiff sued the estate of the deceased car owner for personal injuries from a single-vehicle accident during a hunting trip, where the three occupants had been drinking and the identity of the driver was unknown due to amnesia. The Nevada Supreme Court recognized an owner-driver presumption under state law, holding that the jury should have been instructed on it because circumstantial evidence of who was driving was in conflict and the presumption is supported by probability, general experience, and the weight of authority from other states. The court further addressed related claims of error regarding jury instructions on contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and criminal statutes defining principals, while noting that the statutory list of disputable presumptions is illustrative rather than exclusive.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Recanzone v. Nevada Tax Commission, taxpayers in Churchill County challenged the county assessor's cyclical five-year reappraisal plan under NRS 361.260, arguing that properties should not be reassessed and placed on the tax roll until the entire county was reappraised at once, as partial updates violated uniformity requirements. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling upholding the plan, finding that the statute permits cyclical reappraisals and that the method did not violate Article X, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution or the federal Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to ensure current appraisals for maximum revenue with efficient use of resources, that cyclical plans achieve this better than comprehensive ones with no time lag, and that the record showed no intentional discrimination, arbitrariness, or fraud in how the plan was applied.

taxesproperty

Charmicor, Inc. purchased real property in Las Vegas with a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, defaulted on the note, and faced a nonjudicial foreclosure sale under NRS 107.080. Charmicor sued to enjoin the sale, alleging that the statute violated due process and equal protection, obtained a temporary restraining order that expired, and after the sale proceeded, moved for appointment of a receiver and summary judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional; the district court denied both motions. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the denial of summary judgment, holding that NRAP Rule 3A(b)(5) bars such appeals and that constitutional issues required a fuller factual record. The court affirmed the denial of a receiver, reasoning that Charmicor lacked a probable interest in the property after the sale under NRS 32.010 and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

propertyprocedurecivil rights