Wednesday, April 7, 2021-Carson City-Full Court

82269 ANTHONY VS. MILLER (BALLOT ISSUE)
Docket Number: 82269
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from district court orders denying injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief in an election matter. Appellant Stavros Anthony ran against respondent Ross Miller in the 2020 general election for the Clark County Commission District C seat, and Miller won by 10 votes. There were 139 unexplained discrepancies in the election, and during the election canvass, the Clark County Board of Commissioners voted to hold a special election for the District C seat based on the Registrar of Voters’ representations that he could not be certain the irregularities did not affect the vote count. The Board of Commissioners later reconsidered its decision and voted to certify the District C returns. Anthony sought injunctive relief as well as a writ of mandamus from the district court requiring the Board to hold a new election for the District C seat pursuant to NRS 293.465, which provides for a new election if “an election is prevented in any precinct or district by reason of the loss or destruction of the ballots intended for that precinct, or any other cause.”

ISSUES:

The district court denied relief, determining that the election was not prevented within the meaning of NRS 293.465 and thus the statute did not apply.

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

81350 OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI VS. DIST. CT. (A.M. GUARANTEE AND LIAB. INS. CO.)
Docket Number: 81350
Carson City - 11:00 A.M. - En Banc

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a primary insurance carrier, hired petitioner Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, a law firm, to defend its insured in a wrongful death lawsuit. Respondent American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, the excess insurance carrier, sued Olson for legal malpractice arising out of the wrongful death lawsuit. Olson moved for summary judgment, arguing that excess insurers may not sue for legal malpractice because there is no attorney-client relationship between the excess insurer and the law firm. American moved for leave to amend its complaint to include an equitable subrogation claim against Olson. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment and the motion for leave to amend based on remaining issues of material fact.

ISSUES:

Olson petitions for a writ of mandamus, arguing (1) an excess insurer may not pursue a legal malpractice claim against the attorney hired by the primary insurer to defend the primary’s insured because there is no attorney-client relationship between the excess insurer and the attorney and because there is a conflict of interest between the excess insurer and the insured, and (2) Nevada law does not support the subrogation of legal malpractice claims. Due to issues of fact, this court will only consider the second issue.

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

81842 GUZMAN (WILBER) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Docket Number: 81842
Carson City - 1:00 P.M. - En Banc

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging a district court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss four counts of an indictment returned by a grand jury. Petitioner Wilber Ernesto Martinez Guzman was charged with five burglaries, four murders, and one count of possession of stolen firearms in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County. However, four counts stemmed from crimes committed in Douglas County. A decision of this court on an earlier writ petition held that the Washoe County grand jury has jurisdiction only over charges in which venue would be proper in Washoe County, and charged the district court to reconsider the motion to dismiss. The district court reconsidered and again denied the motion, and Guzman again petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus.

ISSUES:

The issue for this court is whether or not the district court manifestly abused its discretion in finding that venue was proper in Washoe County with respect to the four Douglas County charges. Guzman alleges two kinds of abuses of discretion: (1) that the district court improperly considered irrelevant statutes to determine venue; and (2) that the district court improperly applied the applicable venue statutes to determine that the court had venue over the four disputed charges.

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

80736 KORTE CONSTRE. CO. VS. STATE, BD. OF REGENTS
Docket Number: 80736
Carson City - 2:00 P.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in a limited joinder and unjust enrichment action. The district court concluded the subject of the underlying dispute was governed by an express, written contract, and appellant was therefore barred from claiming unjust enrichment against the property owner. The district court also concluded that a bond posted for appellant’s benefit and exceeding the amount claimed for its services provided an adequate remedy at law and directed final judgment for UNLV.

ISSUES:

ISSUES: whether (1) the existence of the bond precluded appellant’s claim of unjust enrichment as a matter of law; (2) appellant may maintain an unjust enrichment claim against the property owner when appellant had a contract with the lessee and lessee had a contract with the property owner, but appellant did not have a contract with the property owner; and (3) genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether appellant conferred a benefit that the property owner was unjustly retained.

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