Harris (Barry) v. Warden, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May. 30, 2024)

Petitioners have a statutory right to be present for an evidentiary hearing. They may waive this right, but it must be clear in the record that the petitioner personally waived the right. An evidentiary hearing without the petitioner’s presence will be reviewed for harmless error

Jesse Calvin Gilbert v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (May 9, 2024)

An investigatory motive does not invalidate an inventory search if the search would have occurred in the same manner absent the motive, and the circumstances were not fabricated as a pretext. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, finding the inventory search reasonable under the totality of the circumstances

Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sparks v. Nevada Labor Commissioner, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 27, 2024)

Considering the language of NRS §279.500(2)(c), the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether non-cash consideration, rather than money up front, created a financial incentive that would require the payment of prevailing wages on a development project. In this case, the City of Sparks and the Sparks Redevelopment Agency (“RDA”) conveyed property to a developer in exchange for the maintenance of public parking on the property for fifty years. The Court stated that this future compensation did not create a financial incentive, and therefore, NRS 279.500(2)(c) was not invoked. Subsequently, the developer was not required to pay prevailing wages on the project

Thomas Labs, LLC v. Dukes, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Aug. 22, 2024)

NRCP 25(a) and NRS 7.075 work in tandem to determine the requirements and obligations of an attorney when a party dies. NRCP 25(a) requires counsel to serve a notice of death to “eligible nonparty successors or representatives.” Under NRS. 7.075, the decedent’s counsel shall “file a notice of death and a motion for substitution of a party with the court.”[1] The Respondent, Dukes, died several years into litigation against the petitioner, Thomas Labs, LLC. Thomas Labs filed a motion to substitute Dukes with her Trust and its trustee, Hilliard. The district court granted motion with no opposition from Dukes’s counsel. Dukes’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss reasoning that the Trust and Hilliard were not Dukes’s proper representatives. The district court dismissed the Trust and Hilliard but returned Dukes to the suit. Thomas Labs petitioned probate court to appoint paralegal Shara Berry as special administrator. The probate court grated the motion and Thomas Labs moved to substitute Berry as the proper party. Duke’s counsel responded by moving to dismiss the case against Dukes, claiming that, under NRCP 25, the180-day deadline to move to substitute a personal representative had passed. The district court denied Thomas Labs\u27s motion to substitute and granted the motion to dismiss under NRCP 25. The Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case

McCord v. State, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. (Dec. 28, 2023)

In the case of McCord vs. State, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of NRS 482.275(4) regarding license plates.2 The court ruled that a license plate frame partially covering the plate does not constitute “foreign material” making the plate illegible. Furthermore, it established that such a circumstance does not provide probable cause for a traffic stop. This decision addressed the issue of what constitutes a violation of the license plate visibility law, directly impacting the legitimacy of the traffic stop done by the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office on Mr. McCord and the subsequent evidence obtained, leading to the reversal of McCord’s conviction

We Got Next: Las Vegas\u27 Transformation into the Sports Capital of the World

Las Vegas, known for its vibrant entertainment scene and bustling casinos, is ready to step off the bench and onto the court to play in the big league, as the city gears up to become the ultimate sports capitol of the world. This White Paper explores the emergence of professional sports franchises and the exciting evolution of Las Vegas into a premier sports destination. Part I of this White Paper traces the development of sport franchises, ownership dynamics, and the creation of iconic sports venues. Part II explores the legal and economic aspects related to the sports market in Las Vegas, investigating the favorable corporate laws in Nevada and gaining insights from industry experts to understand the impact of regulations on sports franchises and events. The economic implications of sports expansion on the local economy and concerns surrounding public funding for sporting ventures are also addressed. Finally, Part III looks ahead to the future of Las Vegas as a sports city and identifies key considerations for sustainable growth and community engagement. This White Paper invites readers to explore the dynamic intersection of entertainment, innovation, and athletic excellence in one of the world\u27s most exciting cities. Las Vegas has indeed “got next,” and the world is watching as it transforms into the sports capital of the world

Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 14, 2024)

The Supreme Court of Nevada consolidated appeals from a district court judgment pursuant to a jury verdict and orders awarding attorney fees and costs in a medical malpractice action. The lawsuit was on behalf of LaQuinta Whitley-Murray who passed away at Valley Health System operating as Centennial Hills Hospital Medical Center. Murray’s estate and heirs filed a negligence action and argued a breach of fiduciary duty. The district court upheld the jury’s award to Murray of $48 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The district court declined to apply NRS Chapter 41A’s statutory caps on damages in professional negligence actions. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Court also clarified that hospitals do not owe a fiduciary duty to their patients in connection with medical treatment. Accordingly, the Court vacated the compensatory damages and remanded to the district court to apply the damages cap to the noneconomic damages while also reducing the economic and noneconomic damages to the 65-percent pro rata share. The Court also vacated the prejudgment interest award and remanded so that the award is solely based on past damages and not future. Lastly, the Court decided that the attorney fees and costs and expert fees were within the district court’s discretion

Ortiz (Ramel) vs. State [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 04, 2024)

This opinion regards Ramel Ortiz, who was convicted of sexual assault, after he broke into the victim’s home and forced them to engage in multiple sexual acts. Four of these sexual assault counts resulted from an incident where Ortiz subjected the victim to intercourse in different sexual positions. Nevada caselaw provides that a change in position alone is insufficient to show that the resulting sexual acts constitute more than one sexual assault offense. However, Ortiz’s counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the multiple sexual assault convictions. Further, Ortiz filed a postconviction writ of habeas corpus with respect to an ineffective-assistance claim. As a result, the Court reversed in part and remanded the lower court to vacate three of Ortiz’s sexual assault convictions