Wednesday September 14 2022 - Carson City - J. Hardesty, L. Stiglich,D. Herndon
Arce vs. Sanchez
Docket Number: 81862
Carson City - 11:00 am - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon
This is an appeal of a district court order enforcing a settlement agreement after setting aside a prior arbitration award judgment in a personal injury matter. The parties, both represented by counsel, went to arbitration, and the arbitrator found in favor of appellant. In an effort to avoid filing for a trial de novo, respondent’s counsel then contacted the insurance claims adjuster assigned to appellant’s case to propose settling, and they reached an agreement. Counsel then exchanged emails, in which appellant’s counsel accused respondent’s counsel of acting improperly by contacting the claims adjuster without permission from him and told respondent’s counsel that they should set a date for a trial de novo. Appellant then filed for a judgment on the arbitration award and the district court granted the judgment. Respondent moved for relief from the judgment and to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court granted the motion, finding there was a valid settlement agreement and that appellant had improperly filed for judgment on the arbitration award. Appellant appeals this order.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in setting aside the judgment on the arbitration award and granting respondent’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement because: (1) the settlement agreement was void based on respondent’s counsel’s alleged violation of RPC 4.2; and/or (2) the district court lacked authority to enforce the settlement agreement after respondent failed to timely request a trial de novo.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Seibel vs. District Court (Desert Palace, Inc.)
Docket Number: 83723
Carson City - 11:30 am - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion to compel disclosure of documents that petitioners assert are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
ISSUES:
The issues before the court are whether: (1) the district court erred in finding the privileged attorney-client communications discoverable under the crime-fraud exception and (2) the case should be reassigned to another judge.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Brown (Marlon) vs. Warden
Docket Number: 83314
Carson City - 1:30 pm - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon
This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
ISSUES:
Appellant Marlon Brown argues that the district court erred in ruling that the instant petition was successive to his previous petitions because the trial court judge had recused herself from the case prior to entering an order denying his first habeas petition. He further argues his petition was not successive because of an intervening amended judgment of conviction. Furthermore, Brown argues that the orders denying his earlier petitions were not on the merits. Even if the instant petition was successive, Brown argues that he has demonstrated good cause and prejudice to overcome that procedural bar. Finally, Brown argues that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
In Re: 23 Partners Trust I
Docket Number: 82991
Carson City - 2:00 pm - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon
This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal of a district court order concerning the administration of a trust. The grantor created an irrevocable trust for the benefit of his children, providing the trustees with discretion to make distributions to the children. After the grantor passed away, the two primary beneficiaries sought a copy of the trust document and accountings of the trust. The trustees denied the beneficiaries’ request.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred by: (1) ordering that the trustees are not obligated to provide an annual accounting or to allow the beneficiaries to audit the books every year, but ordering the trustees to provide the beneficiaries with certain financial documents annually and (2) ordering that the trustees have no obligation to provide a copy of the trust document to the beneficiaries, but ordering the trustees must provide certain parts of the trust document to the beneficiaries.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do