Mark Gibbons

The case involved Kathleen Turner, who was struck by a foul ball while seated in an unprotected concessions area (the Beer Garden) at a minor league baseball game, leading to claims of negligence, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the stadium operator. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court adopted the limited duty rule for baseball stadiums, requiring operators to provide a sufficient number of protected seats for spectators who desire them and to screen the most dangerous areas of the stands, but held that this duty did not extend to the Beer Garden, which was not a high-risk area, and that the operator had met its obligations through warnings and available protected seating. The court concluded that the Turners' claims failed as a matter of law because no duty was breached.

torts & liability

In Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., a worker injured in 1987 and rendered quadriplegic challenged a successor insurer's directive, following privatization of the state system and a new managed-care contract, that he must switch urologists to one within the insurer's provider network under NRS 616C.090. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of judicial review, holding that the statute applies retroactively to the 1987 claim. The court reasoned that NRS 616C.090 is procedural and remedial rather than a substantive alteration of vested rights, so the worker must select a treating physician consistent with the managed-care contract terms.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Sheriff v. Witzenburg, the case involved a defendant charged with property crimes who challenged the use of affidavits from out-of-state victims at his preliminary examination under a Nevada statute allowing such evidence to prove lack of permission for possession. The justice court admitted the affidavits and bound the defendant over for trial, but the district court granted habeas relief and dismissed related charges, ruling that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Crawford v. Washington required live testimony. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Confrontation Clause and Crawford do not apply to preliminary examinations, which serve only to determine probable cause rather than adjudicate guilt, and that the statute provides a valid exception to cross-examination rights at that stage.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a firefighter who developed disabling heart disease after working for successive employers, the City of North Las Vegas from 1970 to 1985 and later Bechtel Nevada Corporation starting in 1991, and who sought workers' compensation benefits under Nevada's conclusive statutory presumption that heart disease in long-term firefighters arises from employment. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the last injurious exposure rule applies to determine liability among successive employers, assigning responsibility to the employer in closest temporal proximity to the disabling event. The district court had instead imposed liability on the earlier employer, the City, and the Supreme Court reversed that order, remanding for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the rule ensures compensation is paid by the most recent employer while allowing the risk to be spread across employers through standard practices like pre-employment medical screenings.

labor & employment

In Valdez v. Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, an injured worker who became a quadriplegic in a 1987 work accident challenged a directive from the successor workers' compensation insurer requiring him to switch urologists to one within the insurer's new managed-care organization network. The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 616C.090 applies retroactively to the 1987 claim and requires the worker to select a physician from within the contracted network. The court reasoned that the statute is procedural and remedial rather than substantive, so it governs existing claims, and that an injured worker has no vested substantive right to retain a specific treating physician outside the managed-care contract terms. The district court's denial of judicial review was affirmed.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned a custody modification dispute between the biological father and maternal grandmother of a minor child, where the grandmother had been awarded joint legal and primary physical custody after the mother's death and a finding that the father was initially unfit. The district court applied the parental preference doctrine to grant the father's motion for sole custody after finding he had reformed his lifestyle. The appellate court reversed, holding that the parental preference doctrine applies only to initial custody determinations and does not govern subsequent modification requests between a parent and nonparent who already shares joint custody. Instead, the parent seeking modification must demonstrate a material change in circumstances and that the change would substantially enhance the child's welfare, consistent with the best-interest standard under Nevada statutes.

family law

This case arose from a federal products liability lawsuit in which Patrick Ricci, rendered quadriplegic in a rollover accident while driving a 1986 Volvo, alleged a design defect in the vehicle's roof strength. Volvo sought to introduce evidence of compliance with federal roof-strength standards and industry practices to show the vehicle was not defective, while the Riccis opposed it as irrelevant to consumer expectations. After the Ninth Circuit questioned the admissibility of such evidence in dictum and remanded, the federal district court certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether such government and industry standards evidence is admissible as a defense in a strict liability design-defect action under Nevada law. The Nevada Supreme Court declined to answer the certified questions, holding that they were not proper for certification under NRAP 5 because answers would not be determinative of the pending federal action. The court reasoned that evidentiary rulings of this type would not necessarily resolve the litigation, as other issues could remain, and certification is limited to questions whose resolution could materially determine the outcome.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between surety Insurance Company of the West (ICW) and its principal Gibson Tile Company over a performance bond issued for a construction project under a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA). Gibson settled claims from suppliers and defended ICW, but ICW sued Gibson for indemnity costs; Gibson counterclaimed for breach of an alleged oral contract to issue additional bonds, leading to a jury verdict awarding Gibson compensatory and punitive damages. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the district court improperly barred ICW's indemnity claim based on a prior order, that no bad-faith tort claim or fiduciary duty applies to sureties due to the absence of a special relationship, that punitive damages are unavailable in pure contract actions, and that no enforceable oral contract existed because Gibson provided no additional consideration. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Alfonso Manuel Blake, who was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon and one count of attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon after shooting and killing Sophear Choy and Priscilla Van Dine and wounding Kim Choy during a dispute over stored belongings in March 2003. Blake received a death sentence for the murders and consecutive prison terms for the attempted murder. On direct appeal, Blake raised multiple claims of error from the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed those claims and concluded that none warranted relief, leading the court to affirm the convictions and death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether United National Insurance Company and Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A. had duties to defend and indemnify Uriah Enterprises under a comprehensive general liability insurance policy for claims arising from the collapse of a Las Vegas Hilton marquee sign. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Frontier Insurance Company and Uriah, holding that the insurers owed no such duties. The court reasoned that the policy's coverage for "occurrences" of "property damage" requires tangible physical injury during the policy period, but the sign's collapse occurred after the policy had expired, and the complaints alleged no injury during the covered time. Therefore, there was neither potential nor actual coverage triggering the duties to defend or indemnify.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Crowley v. State, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault and lewdness with a minor under fourteen based on an incident involving a 13-year-old boy, along with related charges involving his stepdaughter. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the lewdness conviction, finding it redundant with the sexual assault conviction because both arose from a single continuous act. The court relied on statutory definitions in NRS 200.366 and NRS 201.230, along with precedent in Braunstein v. State establishing that the two crimes are mutually exclusive when based on the same conduct. The remaining convictions and evidentiary rulings were upheld, and the case was remanded for resentencing.

criminal law

The case involved Meridian Gold Company's appeal of a Nevada Tax Commission decision revoking accelerated depreciation on mining assets and assessing additional taxes after the company continued producing gold via cyanide heap leaching past its stated 1993 mine closure date. The Commission had initially approved the accelerated schedule based on Meridian's representations of closure but later determined that ongoing mineral extraction constituted continued mining operations under NAC 362.160, leading to a tax deficiency of over $860,000. The district court upheld the Commission's definition of mine closure as cessation of all production, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the plain meaning of "mining operation" includes extracting metals from the earth, making heap leaching inconsistent with closure and triggering the requirement to pay back taxes under straight-line depreciation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory