Thursday, June 10, 2021-Las Vegas-J. Parraguirre, J. Stiglich, and J. Silver

80107 Capriati Constr. Corp., Inc. vs. Yahyavi C/W 80821
Docket Number: 80107
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

Appellant Capriati Construction Corporation, Inc., argues that

ISSUES:

(1) it elicited testimony that it was bankrupt to rebut respondent Bahram Yahyavi’s allegations of spoliation, so it should not have received case concluding sanctions; (2) the sanctions that it received were too severe; (3) the district court gave an erroneous jury Instruction, informing jury that Capriati had liability insurance to satisfy any verdict; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by awarding Yahyavi more than $2,500,000 in attorney fees based upon appellant’s rejection of an offer of judgment.

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

80668 Fox vs. Warren C/W 81212
Docket Number: 80668
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

These are consolidated appeals from district court orders dismissing a complaint in a tort action, awarding attorney fees and costs, and denying a motion to retax costs.

ISSUES:

On appeal, the issues are whether (1) the district court abused its discretion by imposing case-concluding sanctions under its inherent authority or EDCR 7.60(b) because Fox violated NRS 199.240 and was vexatious; and (2) the district court improperly awarded attorney fees and improperly denied Fox's motion to retax costs.

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

81318 Gonzales vs. Campbell & Williams
Docket Number: 81318
Las Vegas - 11 a.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to adjudicate an attorney’s lien.

ISSUES:

We consider whether the district court (1) manifestly abused its discretion by calculating C&W’s attorney fees as a percentage; (2) erred by adjudicating the lien despite the lack of an “independent agreement” between C&W and Gonzales; or (3) erred by adjudicating the lien despite C&W’s failure to state a dollar amount in the lien notice.

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

79140 Ousley (Byron) vs. State
Docket Number: 79140
Las Vegas - 1:30 p.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

Appellant Byron Charles Ousley appeals his judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of robbery. Ousley had two trials. The first trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, and the second in a guilty jury verdict.

ISSUES:

The issues on appeal are whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied Ousley an evidentiary hearing for his fair-crosssection challenge; (2) the district court violated Ousley’s right to be tried by a jury representing a fair cross section of the community by removing an African American juror for cause; (3) the district court abused its discretion when it allowed an unendorsed witness to testify; (4) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted a redacted jail phone call; (5) the district court abused its discretion when it denied Ousley’s motion for a mistrial; (6) the district court violated Ousley’s due process and Fifth Amendment rights by asking if Ousley would be presenting a defense; (7) the district court’s sua sponte ruling declaring a mistrial in Ousley’s first trial violated Ousley’s double-jeopardy protection under the Fifth Amendment; (8) the district court erred when it denied Ousley’s motion for acquittal; (9) the district court committed judicial misconduct and thus erred when it denied Ousley’s motion for a new trial; (10) the district court erred when it denied Ousley’s motion to reconstruct the record; and (11) 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

80210 In Re: Guardianship of Powell
Docket Number: 80210
Las Vegas - 2:00 p.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

Appellant William Powell, Jr. filed a petition for appointment of guardian over Respondent Loretta Powell. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and William appeals.

ISSUES:

The issues on appeal are whether (1) the district court erred in denying William’s request for an evidentiary hearing and (2) the district court erroneously applied a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether to grant his request.

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