Tuesday, October 6, 2020 - Las Vegas - Full Court
HILDT (ROMAN) VS. DIST. CT. (CITY OF HENDERSON)
Docket Number: 79605
Las Vegas - 10:00 AM - Full Court
In this original writ proceeding, petitioner Roman Hildt maintains that he was erroneously denied the right to a jury trial for his misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence charge based on this court’s recent holding in Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 135 Nev. 321, 448 P.3d 1120 (2019) (determining that the Legislature’s imposition of an automatic and direct restriction on the possession of a firearm following a conviction for misdemeanor domestic battery, via amendments to NRS 202.360, rendered the same a serious offense). Having concluded that misdemeanor domestic battery offenses are serious, this court further held that the “one facing the charge is entitled to the right to a jury trial” under both the United States and Nevada Constitutions. Id. at 324, 448 P.3d at 1124.
ISSUES:
Because Andersen squarely addressed the merits of Hildt’s petition, the sole question raised by this petition is whether the rule announced in Andersen applies retroactively to this case requiring remand for a jury trial.
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
LAFRANCE VS. CLINE
Docket Number: 76161
Las Vegas - 1:00 PM - Full Court
Appellant challenges a district court divorce decree following a two-day bench trial. This appeal raises an issue of first impression as to how this court should apply Obergefell’s holding in a same-sex divorce action.
ISSUES:
Specifically, this court must determine whether, for the purposes of dissolution and property division, the couple’s marriage began in 2000 when they entered into a civil union in Vermont or in 2003 when they married in Canada. Additionally, this court must determine if Nevada’s presumption of community property runs retroactively to the marriage commencement date or arose on the date of the Obergefell decision recognizing the couple’s rights and benefits of marriage.
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
NAUTILUS INS. CO. VS. ACCESS MED., LLC (NRAP 5)
Docket Number: 79130
Las Vegas - 2:00 PM - Full Court
This is a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 in an insurance case.
ISSUES:
The certified question asks: Is an insurer entitled to reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insureds where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and the insurer expressly reserved its right to seek reimbursement in writing after defense has been tendered but where the insurance policy contains no reservation of rights?
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
EUREKA CTY. VS. SADLER RANCH, LLC
Docket Number: 75736
Las Vegas - 3:00 PM - Full Court
This appeal concerns the State Engineer’s Ruling 6371, which granted respondent Sadler Ranch’s application for mitigation rights but for a lower duty than Sadler Ranch requested. A mitigation permit allows a senior surface appropriator to exchange those surface rights for equivalent rights to withdraw groundwater instead. The district court disagreed with the State Engineer’s method of calculation of Sadler Ranch’s historical beneficial use and granted Sadler Ranch a higher duty. Eureka County, a participant in Sadler Ranch’s petition proceeding challenging Ruling 6371, appealed.
ISSUES:
The issue presented is whether substantial evidence supported Ruling 6371 and, if not, then whether the district court had the authority to grant a different amount.
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