Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - Boyd School of Law -Gibbons/Tao/Silver
Sweet vs. Harrah’s Las Vegas, Inc.
Docket Number: 65556
Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law - 10:00 a.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver
These consolidated appeals arise from a slip and fall action where, following a defense verdict at trial, the district court denied appellant’s motion for new trial. Appellant appealed both the denial of the new trial and the jury verdict to this court. During the pendency of that appeal, appellant learned of a different slip and fall suit against respondent from which she allegedly garnered new information concerning her own case. Appellant again moved for a new trial, this time alleging fraud upon the court. This court has consolidated the appeals and will address the denials of the motions for new trial as well as the appeal of the jury verdict.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the district court erred in excluding certain rebuttal evidence, and whether the error allowed respondent to present false testimony to the jury; (2) Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury based upon an incomplete statement of law; (3) Whether certain statements constituted attorney misconduct; (4) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (5) Whether the district court erred by ignoring a juror’s affidavit concerning jury deliberations; (6) Whether the district court erred by holding respondent’s counsel did not engage in witness intimidation; (7) Whether the district court erred by holding respondent’s counsel did not suborn perjury of its witnesses; and (8) Whether the district court erred by determining a stipulation existed between the parties and thereby holding that respondent’s counsel did not violate the rules of discovery by withholding information.
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.
Hajibi vs. Ramadan (Child Custody)
Docket Number: 66898
Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law - 10:30 a.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver
Respondent Nada Ramadan filed for divorce. The district court considered appellant Firas Hajibi’s nolo contendre plea to a domestic violence charge when determining custody of the parties’ three children. Additionally, as a discovery sanction, the district court entered a default against Firas regarding the parties’ property issues. As a result of the default, Firas was not permitted to present evidence regarding the nature of the property. The district court found the marital residence was Nada’s separate property and awarded Nada the residence and the vast majority of the parties’ community property. It also awarded Nada sole legal and physical custody of the children. Following the district court’s oral order, Firas filed a motion to modify his child support and alimony obligations. The district court denied the request.
ISSUES:
(1) Did the district court abuse its discretion by considering Firas’ nolo contendere plea to a domestic violence charge? (2) Did the district court err by failing to join Firas’ father as a party before awarding the marital home to Nada since Firas had transferred the home to his father? (3) Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a default on all property issues? (4) Did the district court err by denying Firas’ child support and alimony modification request?(5) Did the district court err by awarding Nada attorney fees as the prevailing party? and (6) If this court remands the case, should it be heard by a different district court judge?
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.