Thursday, September 24, 2015 - Las Vegas

Ivy (Marlin) vs. State

Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Palmieri vs. Clark County

Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Palardy vs. Sunset Station/Station Casinos, Inc.

Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver - VACATED

 

Tom vs. Innovative Home Systems, LLC consolidated with 66006

Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Hunter vs. Gang consolidated with 63804

Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Ivy (Marlin) vs. State

Docket No. 65870

Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

Appellant Marlin Ivy was convicted by a jury of battery with a deadly weapon. At trial, the State presented evidence Ivy had backed his car into an employee of the Rancho Adult Bookstore following a verbal altercation with three of the bookstore’s employees. ISSUES: (1) whether the State should have disclosed a surveillance video provided by the bookstore, (2) whether the district court erred by denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial based on juror misconduct, (3) whether the district court erred in allowing the State to admit evidence appellant was holding a police patch during the verbal altercation, (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt, and (5) whether cumulative error mandates reversal. (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

 

Palmieri vs. Clark County

Docket No. 65143

Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

Respondent Dawn Stockman is an animal control officer and employee of Clark County Animal Control. She received a complaint regarding appellant Judy Palmieri from a woman who identified herself as Kaitlyn Nichols. Based on the complaint and a brief investigation, Stockman obtained a warrant to search Palmieri’s residence. After searching Palmieri’s residence, Stockman cited Palmieri for violations of various Clark County Code sections. Subsequently, Kaitlyn Nichols signed an affidavit, stating she had never been to Palmieri’s house, she did not make a complaint to Clark County Animal Control regarding Palmieri, and she did not sign a complaint regarding Palmieri. Palmieri sued Stockman and respondent Clark County, alleging they violated her constitutional rights because probable cause did not support the warrant. ISSUES: whether the district court erred in entering summary judgment with respect to Palmieri’s (1) federal civil rights claim against Stockman, (2) federal civil rights claim against Clark County, and (3) state law claims against Stockman. (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

 

Tom vs. Innovative Home Systems, LLC consolidated with 66006

Docket No. 65419

Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

This appeal follows the grant of a summary judgment in favor of a contractor on both lien and contract issues.  The dispute is between a homeowner and a contractor over the installation of several home automation systems.  The contractor did not have an electrical license at the time it bid the project, and performed much of the work, but received its license before it completed the work.  The contractor filed a lien on the homeowner’s property when payments stopped.  The homeowner asserted the work was deficient and incomplete, and the contractor didn’t have the proper license.  The contractor responded that a license was not required for this type of work.  ISSUES: (1) whether the district court erred in finding that respondent had a valid and enforceable mechanic’s lien, (2) whether the district court erred in finding that respondent fully performed under the contract, (3) whether the district court erred in its analysis of respondent’s licensing status, (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs. (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

 

Hunter vs. Gang consolidated with 63804

Docket No. 59691

Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

This case involves the propriety of the grant of a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice, for delay.  The lawsuit arises out of a property dispute between neighbors.  The dismissal occurred less than two years after the complaint was filed, and before the defendant had filed an answer.  ISSUES: (1) whether the district court has inherent authority to dismiss a case for alleged delay, and (2) whether an evidentiary hearing is required. (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)