April 9, 2026, Oral Arguments
Silva vs. Dist. Ct. (Clay) (Civil)
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. vs. State of Nev. (Civil)
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Full Court
Gutierrez-Zacatenco vs. Herrera c/w 89458
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Silva vs. Dist. Ct. (Clay) (Civil)
Docket No. 91228
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Petitioner Francisco Silva and real parties in interest formed CPI Management Group, LLC. Silva sued the other members for, inter alia, breach of various fiduciary duties. The operating agreement does not include the business judgment rule, but the district court found that by adopting fiduciary duties the members had incorporated the business judgment rule to assess whether they breached those duties. The sole issue in this original petition is whether including express fiduciary duties in a limited liability company’s operating agreement can incorporate the business judgment rule sub silentio.
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. vs. State of Nev. (Civil)
Docket No. 91394
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Full Court
Appellants Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and Dr. Doe seek preliminary injunction for Senate Bill 510 (S.B. 510) against respondents State of Nevada and the Nevada Attorney General. Under S.B. 510, patients under 18 may receive an abortion if a physician deems it immediately necessary to preserve the patient’s life or health. Otherwise, minor patients must either notify their parent or custodial guardian or receive judicial bypass authorization. The Nevada Legislature passed S.B. 510 in 1985 but it was permanently enjoined by a federal district court shortly thereafter. In 2025, the federal district court granted a FRCP 60(b)(5) motion and vacated the permanent injunction after two Nevada district attorneys successfully argued that the prior judgment was no longer equitable in part after the United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022). The state district court denied Plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction and Plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, we consider whether the district court erred in finding that: (1) appellants lacked standing to challenge the judicial bypass provisions under NRS 442.255 either in their own right or on behalf of patients under the third-party standing doctrine; (2) challenges to the judicial bypass provisions were not ripe; (3) appellants did not have a reasonable likelihood of success on their claims that S.B. 510 was void ab initio, unconstitutionally vague, or violated procedural due process; (4) appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction; and, (5) that the remaining preliminary injunction factors of balancing hardships against public interest did not favor appellants.
Gutierrez-Zacatenco vs. Herrera c/w 89458
Docket No. 87032
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Appellant Gutierrez-Zacatenco stipulated to liability for a 2019 rear-end car accident, and this case arises out of the jury trial to determine respondent Herrera’s damages. The jury awarded Herrera nearly $4 million. Gutierrez-Zacatenco appeals, arguing that the district court improperly excluded Herrera’s 2017 medical records from a previous car accident on the basis that the documents could not be authenticated and Gutierrez-Zacatenco’s pretrial disclosures did not list the 2017 records. He contends that the records were properly authenticated because Herrera produced her 2017 medical records in discovery and Gutierrez-Zacatenco received a certificate from a custodian of records stating that the documents were authentic. He argues he included the 2017 records in his pretrial disclosures and that any failure to strictly comply with the pretrial disclosure requirements was harmless. He also contends that the district court committed several other evidentiary errors that collectively warrant reversal and improperly awarded attorney fees and costs.