3rd Quarter - 2011 Advanced Opinions
Daane v. Dist. Ct.     Thursday, 29 September 2011
Foreclosure Mediation
127nevadvopno59.pdf
Text
Weddell v. Stewart     Thursday, 29 September 2011
Attorney's Fees
Attorney Malpractice
Deadlines
127nevadvopno58.pdf
Text
City of North Las Vegas v. State, EMRB     Thursday, 29 September 2011
Equitable Tolling of Statute of Limitations
127nevadvopno57.pdf
Text
State v. Hughes     Thursday, 29 September 2011
Constitutionality of NRS 200.710
Minor is under 18 years.
127nevadvopno56.pdf
Text
Ford v. State     Thursday, 29 September 2011
Constitutionality of NRS 201.300
127nevadvopno55.pdf
Text
Adam v. State     Thursday, 22 September 2011
NRS 453.3385
127nevadvopno54.pdf
Text
Otak Nevada, LLC v. Dist. Ct.     Thursday, 08 September 2011
NRS 11.258, NRS 11.259
127nevadvopno53.pdf
Text
Yellow Cab of Reno v. Dist. Ct.     Thursday, 04 August 2011
NRS 706.473(1)
127nevadvopno52.pdf
Text
Gallegos v. Malco Enterprises of Nevada     Thursday, 04 August 2011
In this opinion, we clarify that rights of action held by a judgment debtor are subject to execution toward satisfaction of a judgment under NRS 21.080, and may be judicially assigned pursuant to NRS 21.320.
127nevadvopno51.pdf
Text
Hawkins v. State     Thursday, 04 August 2011
By the Court, PICKERING, J.:
Appellant Collie Hawkins contends that the district court erred by rejecting his challenges to the State’s peremptory challenges of three jurors as impermissible race discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).  On the record and briefs presented, we cannot sustain this claim.
127nevadvopno50.pdf
Text
Rennels v. Rennels     Thursday, 04 August 2011
Grandparents and other nonparents are typically not entitled to visitation with a minor child as a matter of right because there is a recognized presumption that a parent’s desire to deny visitation is in the best interest of the child.  However, pursuant to NRS 125C.050, a grandparent or other nonparent may be granted judicially approved visitation rights in some instances. 
127nevadvopno49.pdf
Text
Roethlisberger v. McNulty     Thursday, 04 August 2011
Change of venue pursuant to NRS 13.040, based on residence, and NRS 13.050, based on convenience. 
127nevadvopno48.pdf
Text
LVMPD v. Coregis Insurance Co.     Thursday, 04 August 2011
By the Court, GIBBONS, J.:
            These appeals raise important issues about insurance claim notice provisions and whether an insurer may properly deny coverage to an insured based on late notice of a claim in the absence of prejudice to the insurer.  Because we conclude that prejudice must be shown, we also address the issue of who has the burden to demonstrate prejudice or lack of prejudice and place that burden on the insurer.  Before reaching those issues, however, we first address whether summary judgment was appropriately entered in favor of the insurer, when the parties dispute whether the notice was timely, given the language of the insurance policy and the facts present here.
127nevadvopno47.pdf
Text
City of Oakland v. Desert Outdoor Adver.     Thursday, 04 August 2011
By the Court, CHERRY, J.:
            This appeal involves an attempt by appellant City of Oakland to enforce, in Nevada, a California civil judgment against respondent Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc.  We consider whether the California judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in Nevada.  Recognizing that Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 (1892), provides an exemption to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, such that other states’ penal judgments are unenforceable in the State of Nevada, we conclude that the California judgment in this case was penal in nature and, as such, is not enforceable in Nevada.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision in this matter.
Text
127nevadvopno46.pdf
Williams v. Dist. Ct.     Thursday, 28 July 2011
These consolidated writ petitions raise two novel issues involving the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) whether a nurse can testify as an expert regarding medical causation, and (2) whether defense expert testimony offering alternative causation theories must meet the “reasonable degree of medical probability” standard set forth in Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 155, 111 P.3d 1112, 1114 (2005). 
127nevadvopno45.pdf
Text
Cortes v. State     Thursday, 21 July 2011
Under Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), if the finding of reasonable suspicion is sound, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.  On appeal, Cortes urges us to reject the district court’s finding of reasonable suspicion or to interpret the Nevada constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures more strictly than the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment in Johnson.  Finding no basis for doing so, we affirm.
127nevadvopno44.pdf
Text
Rose v. State     Thursday, 21 July 2011
Assaultive-type felonies that involve a threat of immediate violent injury merge with a charged homicide for purposes of second-degree felony murder and therefore cannot be used as the basis for a second-degree felony-murder conviction.  
127nevadvopno43.pdf
Text
Winkle v. Warden     Thursday, 14 July 2011
305 Program for alcohol treatment and residential confinement pursuant to NRS 209.425 through NRS 209.429
127nevadvopno42.pdf
Text
Dynalectric Company v. Clark & Sullivan     Thursday, 14 July 2011
Measure of Damages
127nevadvopno41.pdf
Text
Leyva v. National Default Servicing Corp.     Thursday, 07 July 2011
A homeowner, even if he or she is not the named mortgagor, is a proper party entitled to request mediation following a notice of default.
A party is considered to have fully complied with the statute and rules only upon production of all documents required.
Required Sanctions
127nevadvopno40.pdf
Text
Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA     Thursday, 07 July 2011
A lender commits sanctionable offenses when it does not produce documents and does not have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan, as set forth in the applicable statute, NRS 107.086, and the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs).
The district court shall not direct the program administrator to certify the mediation to allow the foreclosure process to proceed until the parties have fully complied with the statute and rules governing foreclosure mediation.
A party’s failure to comply with these requirements (documents and person with authority to negotiate) is an offense subject to sanctions by the district court.
127nevadvopno39.pdf
Text
Redrock Valley Ranch v. Washoe County     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno38.pdf
Text
Smith v. Kisorin USA     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno37.pdf
Text
Costello v. Casler     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno36.pdf
Text
Jitnan v. Oliver     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno35.pdf
Text
Saletta v. State     Thursday, 07 July 2011
Benchmark Insurance Company v. Sparks     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno33.pdf
Text
Lawrence v. Clark County     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno32.pdf
Text
State, Tax Comm’n v. American Home Shield     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno31.pdf
Text
Berrum v. Otto     Thursday, 07 July 2011
127nevadvopno30.pdf
Text