September 26, 2023, Oral Arguments
Clark County School District vs. Smith
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Bonilla vs. Sedgwick CMS
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Holland vs. Anthony L. Barney, Ltd.
Las Vegas – 2:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Clark County School District vs. Smith
Docket No. 84259-COA
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Justin Smith ran track for Durango High School’s track and field team. Durango is part of the Clark County School District. A color picture of Smith running track was published in the official school newspaper that showed Smith running. The picture also showed what many of his fellow students wrongfully believed to be Smith’s exposed genitals. Smith filed a complaint against Clark County School District alleging that it was negligent in allowing the picture to be published in the official school yearbook. A one-day bench trial was held on the matter and the short trial judge found in favor of Smith and awarded him $5,000 in general damages and $1,000 in special damages. The district court entered judgment in those amounts. Clark County School District now appeals. The issues on appeal are whether (1) the short trial judge erred by failing to set forth a duty of care that was breached by the school district and (2) the short trial judge abused his discretion in its award of damages.
Bonilla vs. Sedgwick CMS
Docket No. 84780-COA
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a workers’ compensation matter. Cruz Bonilla was injured at work when an unsecured roll of carpet fell onto his head causing injuries to his head, neck, and shoulders. Bonilla was treated for the initial injury, and after several months returned to work. However, seven months later, Bonilla began experiencing seizures due to his industrial injury. The parties agreed to an election of lump sum compensation for the initial injuries but did not close the claim allowing him to continue treatment for his seizures. Ultimately, because of the seizures, Bonilla requested permanent total disability (PTD) benefits under the odd-lot doctrine set forth in NRS 616C. 435(2). Sedgwick denied the request, which the appeals officer upheld. Bonilla then filed a petition for judicial review with the district court, which was denied. The issue before the court is whether the appeals officer abused their discretion in denying Bonilla’s request for PTD benefits under the odd-lot doctrine.
Holland vs. Anthony L. Barney, Ltd.
Docket No. 84908-COA
Las Vegas – 2:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment in a civil action against appellant for claims of quiet title, conversion, fraudulent transfer, and constructive trust involving community property (the subject property). During approximately ten years of legal proceedings before various courts, respondent’s predecessor in interest (a family trust) eventually established that appellant’s former husband had misappropriated trust funds from the trust and utilized those funds to purchase the subject property, which appellant and her former husband used as their primary residence.
Following an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding wherein the bankruptcy court imposed an equitable lien on the subject property in favor of respondent’s predecessor in interest, respondent filed an action in district court to enforce its ownership interest in the subject property. Shortly thereafter, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that court orders from prior proceedings prevented appellant from contesting title to the subject property, but did not prevent respondent from obtaining title. The district court ultimately granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that, despite the bankruptcy court’s order imposing an equitable lien, a constructive trust was the appropriate vehicle to grant respondent relief in this matter due in part to appellant’s fraudulent transfer of the subject property to herself following the bankruptcy proceedings.
Appellant raises several issues on appeal which primarily involve resolving the applicability of the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy judgment on subsequent district court proceedings, as well as determining whether genuine disputes of material fact remain that precluded the grant of summary judgment by the district court.