Tuesday, October 16, 2018 - Las Vegas - Silver/Tao/Gibbons
Winters vs. Dist. Ct. (Dennis)
Docket Number: 75292
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals
Avis and Dan Winters filed a civil complaint for forfeiture of proceeds from their daughter’s life insurance policy, alleging that she died under suspicious circumstances and that her husband, Gregory Brent Dennis, was a culpable actor in her death. After the Winters and their counsel retained a public relations firm and disseminated unpublished discovery material, and the Winters’ counsel granted interviews to local media in order to, in the words of the district court, “materially prejudice the adjudicative proceeding,” Dennis moved to dismiss the case or disqualify the Winters’ counsel. The district court denied Dennis’ motion but, finding that the Winters’ counsel violated Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a), awarded Dennis’ counsel attorney fees for time spent on the matter.
ISSUES:
The Winters' seek a writ of mandamus reversing the district court’s orders. The Winters' argue that the district court lacked legal authority to award attorney fees. Dennis argues that the court possessed the necessary authority and, in any case, this court should deny the petition because the Winters' have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal after a final judgment.
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.
Fore vs. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Docket Number: 72847
Las Vegas - 2:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals
Byron James Fore, an inmate with the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), appeals from an order dismissing an action for declaratory relief. The Court of Appeals had previously ordered NDOC to provide specific information to Fore pertaining to administrative restitution it had previously assessed against him in relation to his having stabbed a fellow inmate. NDOC filed a notice of compliance with the district court stating that it had provided the information, and after six months passed with no further filings, the district court dismissed the action. Fore appealed, arguing primarily that NDOC did not actually provide the information.
ISSUES:
(1) Is the case now moot in light of information NDOC provided to Fore on appeal? (2) Did the district court err in dismissing the action without making any findings or considering any evidence? (3) Does NDOC’s method of assessing restitution in an amount “to be determined” exceed its authority or violate NRS Chapter 176?
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.