Fred vs. District Court (State, Department of Public Safety Investigation Division)
Carson City –11:30 a.m. – Full Court
In RE: Parental Rights As to K.N.D.M., K.E.S.M., K.E.M.M., K.E.M.M., K.M.K.M.
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Sullivan, P.E. vs. Lincoln Company Water District
Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court
Fred vs. District Court (State, Department of Public Safety Investigation Division)
Docket No. 85590
Carson City –11:30 a.m. – Full Court
Petitioner Elvin Fred argues in his petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition that Nevada’s forfeiture statutes violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Nevada Constitution. Fred pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking charge in 2015 and received a life sentence with eligibility for parole. Real party in interest the Investigation Division of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Nevada (Tri-Net Narcotics Task Force) initiated forfeiture proceedings against Fred’s Carson City home. Fred moved to dismiss the forfeiture proceedings on constitutional grounds. After the district court denied his motion, Fred brought the instant writ petition.
In RE: Parental Rights As to K.N.D.M., K.E.S.M., K.E.M.M., K.E.M.M., K.M.K.M.
Docket No. 84605
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
This is an appeal from a district court order terminating appellant’s parental rights as to her four children. Prior to the underlying removal, some of the children had been previously removed from her care and then returned to her care. As a result, the district court entered an order waiving the requirement that respondent Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Thereafter, the district court entered an order terminating appellant’s parental rights because the termination was in the children’s best interest and based on six parental fault findings: (1) an order was entered waiving the requirement that DFS make reasonable efforts to reunify, (2) neglect, (3) parental unfitness, (4) failure of parental adjustment, (5) risk of serious injury posed to the children, and (6) appellant made token efforts. ISSUES: (1) is it constitutional to terminate parental rights based on the parental-fault finding that an order has been entered waiving DFS’s responsibility to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family when the burden of proof for such an order is preponderance of the evidence instead of clear and convincing evidence, (2) does substantial evidence support the other five parental-fault findings, and (3) does substantial evidence support the finding that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.
Sullivan, P.E. vs. Lincoln Company Water District C/W 84741/84742/84809
Docket No. 84739/84741/84742/84809
Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court
This consolidated appeal arises from a district court order vacating State Engineer Order 1309. The State Engineer issued Order 1309 in response to concerns that a geographically large source of groundwater supply called the carbonate aquifer underlay multiple topographical basins, and that the supply of groundwater in the carbonate aquifer was over appropriated by existing water rights. Order 1309 combined seven areas into a single hydrographic basin while maintaining the areas as sub-basins and applied a pump cap throughout—restricting owners of water rights from pumping water.
On appeal, this court ordered the parties to address the following issues: “(1) The basin issue[ ]: whether the State Engineer had legal authority to delineate the Lower White River Flow System (LWRFS) as a single hydrographic basin for joint administration and conjunctive management of ground and surface waters based on its interconnectivity and shared supply of water. (2) The due process issues: whether (A) the notice and hearing procedure employed by the State Engineer satisfied the requirements of due process; (B) the hearing provided by the State Engineer satisfied due process and afforded respondents a full and complete opportunity to address the implications of the State Engineer's decision to subject the LWRFS to conjunctive management and joint administration; and (C) the State Engineer's nondisclosure, before or during the Order 1303 proceedings, of the six criteria he would use in evaluating the connectivity of the basins and determining the new consolidated basin boundary satisfied the requirements of due process.”