Thursday, April 15, 2021-Las Vegas-J. Parraguirre, J. Stiglich, and J. Silver

79604 SCIARRATTA VS. FOREMOST INS. CO. GRAND RAPIDS MICH.
Docket Number: 79604
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), in an insurance defense action. The plaintiff was injured when he let his wife’s cousin drive his motorcycle. The plaintiff sought coverage under his wife’s umbrella policy, but the insurer denied coverage based on a “household exclusion” clause which excluded “all damages payable to an insured.”

ISSUES:

The plaintiff argues the exclusion clause is invalid because it does not comply with NRS 687B.147; because he claims the exclusion was never disclosed to him or to his wife; and because household exclusions are against public policy. Alternatively, he argues the district court should have granted him more time to take discovery under NRCP 56(d).

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

80925 STATE VS. SEKA (JOHN)
Docket Number: 80925
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

John Seka was convicted in 2001 by a jury of two counts of murder and two counts of robbery related to the 1998 killings of his boss, Peter Limanni, and a contract worker, Eric Hamilton. Limanni owned Cinergi HVAC. Limanni was discovered nearly two months after his disappearance; he had been shot at least ten times. Hamilton was found approximately one day after he died; he had been shot three times. Both bodies were transported in Cinergi vehicles and dumped in the desert. Evidence suggested Limanni may have been killed inside Cinergi, and evidence established Hamilton died in the empty shop next door. Circumstantial evidence and Seka’s confession to a friend strongly implicated him in both murders. Seka was sentenced to life without parole. In 2017, Seka requested additional DNA testing on the evidence. That testing excluded Seka as a contributor from certain pieces of evidence, notably DNA under Hamilton’s fingernails and a beer bottle, tobacco container, and cigarette stub found off the road in the vicinity of Hamilton’s body. The district court granted Seka’s subsequent motion for a new trial, and this appeal followed.

ISSUES:

The sole issue for this court is whether the district court abused its discretion by granting Seka’s motion for a new 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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

80018 CLARK (WALTER) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 80018
Las Vegas - 1:00 P.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an NRAP 4(c) direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of murder with the use of a deadly weapon and attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon.

ISSUES:

Key issues: Whether (1) plain error affects Clark's substantial rights because (i) the district court committed judicial misconduct by asking jurors preliminary questions before administering an oath under NRS 16.030(5), (ii) the district court failed to admonish the jury regarding prejudicial juror statements during voir dire, (iii) the district court committed misconduct during deliberations, (iv) the district court gave erroneous jury instructions, (v) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct on cross-examination or in its closing arguments, and (vi) he was unable to present a defense; (2) sufficient evidence supports Clark's convictions for first-degree murder and attempted murder, (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting a preliminary hearing transcript; and (4) whether cumulative error warrants reversal.

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