Tuesday, January 16, 2018 - Las Vegas
Glover-Armont vs. Cargile
Docket Number: 70988
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals
Appellant Japonica Glover-Armont was injured in a car accident that occurred when Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer John Cargile was responding to an emergency call regarding a shooting. On appeal, Glover-Armont contends that the district court erred when it granted respondents’ motion for reconsideration of their motion for summary judgment after concluding that Cargile’s actions were shielded from liability under the doctrine of discretionary immunity. Glover-Armont contends that this was an error because there were genuine issues of material fact that should be determined by a jury in order to assess whether Officer Cargile’s actions fall within the scope of discretionary immunity. Cargile and the City of Las Vegas argue that those issues are of no import because they do not impact the analysis regarding immunity.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment after it determined that the police officer was engaged in a discretionary act in furtherance of public policy under this court’s decision in Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433, 168 P.3d 720 (2007), and was thus entitled to discretionary immunity, and (2) whether the district court erred when it granted respondents’ motion for because there are genuine issues of material fact that affect the issue of whether respondents exercised due care such that they are entitled to discretionary immunity.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
McKee-Blackham vs. Maley (Child Custody)
Docket Number: 70555
Las Vegas - 2:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals
This appeal concerns custody over a child. Appellant challenges the award of primary physical custody to respondent.
ISSUES:
(1) Did the district court err in granting primary physical custody to respondent? (2) Did the court improperly consider evidence from a different case involving appellant in making this determination?
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.