June 5, 2023, Oral Arguments
In Re: D.O.T Litigation
Las Vegas –10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company vs. District Court (JGB Vegas Retail Lessee, LLC)
Las Vegas –10:30 a.m. – Full Court
State vs. Bratton
Las Vegas –11:30 a.m. – Full Court
In Re: D.O.T Litigation
Docket No. 82014
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Appellants are unsuccessful applicants for retail recreational marijuana licenses that filed suit alleging that they were harmed by flaws in the license application process. Appellants appeal, inter alia, two district court orders under which the court granted an injunction limiting the final licensure of certain successful applicants but granting no other relief. Appellants contend that the relief afforded by the court was insufficient to redress the harm suffered and that the district court made several procedural errors throughout the litigation. Issues: (1) Whether Appellants have standing to challenge the Department of Taxation's process for recreational marijuana license applications; (2) Whether Appellants' claims pertaining to the constitutionality of the Department of Taxation's regulations are moot because the regulations at issue were repealed; (3) Whether the district court erred in granting relief based on the claims and evidence presented at trial; (4) Whether the district court erred in refusing to order the Department of Taxation to supplement the Administrative Record and denying Appellants' Motion to submit extra-record evidence; (5) Whether the district court erred by not shifting the burden of proof in light of the discovery sanctions issued against the Department of Taxation; (6) Whether the district court erred by applying a heightened standard of proof; and (7) Whether the district court erred by allowing the Department of Taxation to certify its own compliance with the permanent injunction issued.
Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company vs. District Court (JGB Vegas Retail Lessee, LLC)
Docket No. 84986
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Full Court
This writ petition challenges a district court order denying an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a policyholder’s breach of contract and declaratory relief claims. The policyholder seeks coverage under its commercial property insurance policy for business losses sustained amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. In the writ petition, the insurer maintains that no coverage exists because the presence of COVID-19, or the virus causing it, on property does not amount to direct physical loss or damage to property as required under the policy. The insurer also asserts that the virus-based claims here are excluded under the policy’s pollution and contamination exclusion. Issues: (1) Whether the court should entertain the writ petition, upon a denial from summary judgment, because coverage for COVID-19 losses under commercial property insurance presents issues of statewide importance; (2) Whether the court should grant writ relief because the policyholder’s claim fails as a matter of law, since COVID-19, or the virus causing it, cannot cause "direct physical loss or damage” to property as required under the policy; (3) Whether the court should grant writ relief because a policy exclusion barring coverage for loss or damage due to pollution and contamination, where the policy defines pollutant or contaminants to include "virus," should apply to the policyholder’s claims as a matter of law.
State vs. Bratton
Docket No. 84958/85150/85399/85400/85516/85517
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Full Court
These consolidated appeals challenge district court orders dismissing criminal complaints based on due process violations. Below, the district court found each respondent to be incompetent to stand trial and ordered each to be transferred to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation and treatment to restore competency. When transfer to the hospital was delayed for a period of months, each respondent filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges against them. The district court granted the motions to dismiss, concluding that continued incarceration, without treatment, constituted a violation of the respondents’ due process rights. The State now appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the criminal charges, which the State deems an inappropriate and extreme remedy for any due process violations.