Summary of Brant v. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 97

The Court upheld that the exclusion of expert testimony is left to the district court’s wide discretion, except in cases of abuse of its discretion. Expert testimony must be relevant and reliable to be of assistance to the trier of fact. Because Brant could not present scientific or other evidence that his interrogation witness would demonstrate that Brant’s brain injury caused him falsely confess, the district court’s discretion would not be disturbed and the judgment was affirmed

Mensah v. Corevel Corp., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 06, 2015)

The Court held self-employed workers may still be entitled to temporary disability and the employee’s lost wages should be calculated by considering business income and losses and not strictly evidence of a traditional salar

Summary of Jennifer L. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (Jun. 04, 2015)

The Court held that, although a legal guardianship had been established, and a parent had neither legal nor physical custody of a child, parents are not relived of their parental duties to provide for the care, support, or maintenance of the child

Veil v. Bennett, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (Apr. 30, 2015)

The Court held that, although a sheriff has a duty to diligently execute arrest warrants, he is within his discretion to determine how to best execute the arrest warrants. The statute does not impose a duty to enter the warrant information into an electronic database

Summary of D&D Tire, Inc., v. Ouellette, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (Jul. 02, 2015)

The Court held that a subcontractor or independent contractor is not immune to liability for workplace injuries if the work being performed is a specialized repair. Ouellette was injured by an employee of Purcell while performing a task that would not be considered a specialized repair. The employee, however, was only present on the job site because of a specialized repair. The Court, however, held that the activity leading to the injury must be considered in context and the employee would not have been present but for the repair

Summary of Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Hyatt, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 71

The Court (1) affirmed the intentional tort and bad faith exceptions to discretionary-function immunity under NRS 41.032; (2) recognized the common law tort of publicity in a false light; (3) adopted the sliding-scale approach to proving a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) determined comity does not demand granting immunity from suit to foreign state government agencies if immunity would be available under that state’s laws, but not under Nevada law; and (5) determined comity does not require extending statutory caps to foreign state government agencies even if provided by law to Nevada government agencies