Tuesday, October 27, 2020, Las Vegas, Court of Appeals

PORCHIA VS. CITY OF LAS VEGAS
Docket Number: 78954-COA
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals

Respondent responded to an emergency call from appellant who complained of abdominal pain. Respondent did not transport appellant. Eight hours later, appellant was transported to the hospital and underwent emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction. Appellant sued respondent and the district court dismissed the action under the public duty doctrine as set forth in NRS 41.0336.

ISSUES:

Issues: Did the district court err when it dismissed the action without considering the following two exceptions to the public duty doctrine: (1) whether respondent affirmatively caused the harms and (2) whether respondent’s actions rose to the level of gross negligence.

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.

LANDAN VS. LANDAN
Docket Number: 77858-COA
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals

In this appeal, appellant challenges the district court's determination regarding the time of the "last transaction" for the purposes of enforcing a judgment under NRS 17.214 and NRS 11.190. In its order, the district court determined that because appellant admitted that he spoke with respondent about their 2012 judgment in 2016, and reached an agreement that was not reduced to writing, the time for accrual of judgment under NRS 17. 214, 11.190 and 11.200 was tolled.

ISSUES:

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in reaching this determination.

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.

DOUCETTPERRY VS. DOUCETTPERRY (CHILD CUSTODY)
Docket Number: 80114-COA
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals

James Doucettperry appeals a district court order and divorce decree. James and Maria Doucettperry were married for 17 years before they separated. In 2013, they executed a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that contained provisions governing child custody, child support, spousal support, and distribution of property. Maria filed for divorce in 2018, seeking to incorporate the terms of the MSA into the divorce decree and seeking sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties’ two minor children. James argued that the MSA was not valid and induced by fraud because Maria is an attorney. James also requested joint legal and physical custody of the children. After a bench trial, the district court found there was no evidence of fraud and incorporated and merged the MSA into the divorce decree. The district court also awarded Maria sole legal and primary physical custody of the children, with James to exercise parenting time informally.

ISSUES:

James appeals, arguing that the district court improperly incorporated the MSA despite it being induced by fraud, and that the district court did not make the proper findings when awarding Maria sole legal and primary physical custody of the children. James also argues that the district court improperly limited discovery in this matter.

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.