Monday, March 1, 2021-Carson City-Full Court

79718 WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N
Docket Number: 79718
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - En Banc

Michael Whitfield was previously employed by Nevada Department of Corrections as a correctional officer. NDOC terminated Whitfield from his position because he could no longer carry a firearm, a requirement for his position. Whitfield appealed his dismissal to the Nevada State Personnel Commission, which upheld his termination. Whitfield petitioned for judicial review. The petition did not name any party as a respondent in the caption or body of the petition, although the petition referenced the Commission and NDOC. Whitfield moved to amend his petition after NRS 233B.130’s 30-day filing deadline. The district court granted NDOC’s subsequent motion to dismiss, holding that Whitfield’s original petition did not comply with the party-naming requirements under NRS 233B.130, and the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (“NAPA”) prevented the amended petition from relating back to the original petition. Whitfield now appeals.

ISSUES:

The issues on appeal are whether: (1) Whitfield properly named all necessary respondents in his petition under NRS 233B.130; (2) this court should modify Washoe Cty. v. Otto to allow for the amending of a petition after NRS 233B.130(2)’s filing deadline passed; and (3) the district court should have allowed Whitfield to amend his petition for judicial review based on his pro se status.

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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

81281 MORENCY VS. STATE, DEP'T OF EDUCATION
Docket Number: 81281
Carson City - 11:00 A.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in a case involving a constitutional challenge to the 2019 Assembly Bill 458 (A.B. 458). A.B. 458 eliminated future tax credits for businesses making donations to Nevada’s Educational Choice Scholarship Program (NECSP). Appellants are Flor Morency, and other parents of students who had previously received a scholarship under NECSP, the AAA Scholarship Foundation, and Sklar Williams PLLC, and Environmental Design Group, LLC, two businesses who benefited from the NECSP tax credits (collectively, Morency). Morency filed a complaint against respondents the State, its departments for education and taxation, and several state employees in their official capacities, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) thereafter intervened in the case (collectively, the State). The State and Morency filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the State’s and the Legislature’s motions for summary judgment, finding that A.B. 458 is constitutional.

ISSUES:

The sole issue on appeal is whether A.B. 458 violates Article 4, Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution—the supermajority provision.

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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

78701 MOTOR COACH INDUS., INC. VS. KHIABANI
Docket Number: 78701
Carson City - 1:30 P.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from a special jury verdict and orders denying motions for judgment as a matter of law, for new trial, for offset of judgment, and to retax costs. The verdict was for the surviving family members (Respondents) of a bicyclist who was killed in a collision with a bus designed by Appellant Motor Coach Industries (MCI). The bicyclist, Dr. Kayvan Khiabani, was a successful surgeon. Dr. Khiabani’s surviving family members brought suit against MCI and several other defendants, but the other defendants settled before trial. At trial, the family argued several product defect theories against MCI, including a failure to warn theory. The most relevant theory for this appeal was that the design of the bus caused air displacement which was dangerous to bicyclists, and that MCI improperly failed to warn of this effect. The jury returned a special verdict against the family on every design defect theory, but found for the family on the failure to warn theory. The jury awarded damages to the family partially on loss of support grounds. The district court also taxed MCI for the plaintiffs’ trial costs. MCI renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (denied), moved to retax costs (granted in part), and moved for offset from the judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs had already recovered significantly through their previous settlements (denied). After trial, news reporting on Dr. Khiabani’s employer alleged certain facts that placed Dr. Khiabani’s employment status at the time of his death in doubt, something previously unknown to MCI. MCI attempted to restart discovery after this reporting, and moved for new trial. The district court denied both requests.

ISSUES:

The issues on appeal are whether: (1) MCI properly preserved several issues for appeal; (2) as a matter of law, the plaintiffs sufficiently put forth evidence for the causation element of their failure to warn claim; (3) the district court improperly excluded the presentation of evidence regarding Nevada traffic law as it related to any potential alternative warning; (4) the special verdict form enabled the jury to make an actual finding regarding causation on the failure to warn claim; (5) the financial support award testimony should have given the jury information about the decedent’s net income rather than gross income; (6) the new evidence regarding Dr. Khiabani’s employment merits a new trial on the financial support justification for the jury’s award; (7) the district court improperly taxed MCI for the plaintiffs’ trial costs; and (8) MCI was entitled to an offset based on the amount the plaintiffs had recovered from settling defendants.

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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

80300 IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF RUBIN
Docket Number: 80300
Carson City - 3:00 P.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a guardianship petition.

ISSUES:

. ISSUES: whether (1) as a preliminary matter, the district court order is a final order that is appealable; (2) NRS 159.044(2) requires that a physician's certificate be a part of a petition for guardianship or exempts a physician's certificate when a petitioner is not reasonably able to obtain one; (3) if a physician's certificate is required, it must be based on an in-person examination of the proposed protected person; (4) the district court abused its discretion when it did not allow discovery or an evidentiary hearing before denying the petition for guardianship; and (5) a district court may deny a petition for guardianship because there are less restrictive means available.

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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do