January 4 , 2024, Oral Arguments
In RE: Matter Of: The Estate Of John C. Wagner
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Castillo vs. W. Range Ass’n (NRAP 5)
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full Court
City Of Las Vegas vs. 180 Land Co, LLC c/w 84640
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Full Court
In RE: D.C., Jr.
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Owens vs. District Court (Rifley)
Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court
In RE: Matter Of: The Estate Of John C. Wagner
Docket No. 85213
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
John Wagner was an electrician who repaired Eaton’s Cutler Hammer motor starters. Those starters contained chrysotile asbestos. He developed mesothelioma from exposure to that and other asbestos. He and his wife Denise sued Eaton for strict product liability, alleging their injuries stemmed from Eaton’s motor starter. Following a jury trial, the district court awarded the Wagners $15.5 million, including $10 million for her future loss of consortium. It offset the verdict with proceeds from the Wagners’ settlement with the other defendants, resulting in a $12,039,098 judgment against Eaton. Issues: (1) whether the district court erred in granting the Wagners judgment as a matter of law on Eaton’s product misuse defense; (2) whether the district court erred by excluding Eaton’s expert; (3) whether the district court erred by permitting future loss of consortium damages for John’s pre-diagnosis life expectancy; and (4) whether the district court erred by offsetting the verdict with proceeds from non-settling defendants.
Castillo vs. W. Range Ass’n (NRAP 5)
Docket No. 85926
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full Court
Pursuant to NRAP 5, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada certified a question to the court. The federal district court found that it could not adjudicate respondent Western Range’s summary judgment motion regarding whether it owed appellant Abel Cantaro Castillo additional wages under the Nevada Minimum Wage Amendment. To do so, it required Nevada precedent defining what constitutes compensable hours worked under the Amendment. Therefore, the federal district court certified the following question: Under the Constitution of the State of Nevada and Chapter 608 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, does Nevada law require Defendant Western Range Association to pay Plaintiff Abel Cantaro Castillo 24 hours of wages for every day worked because Plaintiff Castillo was not allowed to leave and was always performing some job duties even though some of the time he spent on the range was for his personal benefit? Castillo also asks this court to rephrase the certified question.
City Of Las Vegas vs. 180 Land Co, LLC c/w 84640
Docket No. 84345
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Full Court
Respondents/cross-appellants, the landowner, sued appellant/cross-respondent the City of Las Vegas after the City rejected its applications to residentially develop a 35-acre property. The district court found that a taking occurred, determined that just compensation for the taking was $34,135,000, and also awarded the landowner prejudgment interest, reimbursement for taxes, and attorney fees and costs. The City appeals from final judgment and post-judgment awards. 180 Land appeals from the post-judgment order awarding prejudgment interest. Issues: (1) whether the takings claims were ripe; (2) whether the district court erred in finding that a taking occurred; (3) whether the district court erred in valuing the just compensation for the land; (4) whether the district court erred in awarding tax reimbursement and attorney fees and costs; and (5) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding a prejudgment interest rate of prime plus 2%.
In RE: D.C., Jr.
Docket No. 84563
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
D.C., a then-14-year-old minor, was charged by petition in juvenile court with six counts, including murder with use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon, and robbery with use of a deadly weapon. The juvenile court found that D.C. was not competent and ordered competency restoration sessions. After a competency hearing, the juvenile court concluded that D.C. was competent to proceed. About a month later, the juvenile court certified D.C. to adult status for criminal proceedings. The issues on appeal are (1) whether the juvenile court erred when it found that D.C. was competent; and (2) whether the court correctly found that there was prosecutive merit when it certified D.C.
Owens vs. District Court (Rifley)
Docket No. 86360
Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court
In the case underlying this petition for writ of mandamus, real party in interest Macie Rifley was injured in a motor vehicle accident. She then filed suit against petitioner Lenard Owens. During discovery, Owens sought to compel Rifley to submit to neuropsychological and neurological examinations under NRCP 35. The district court granted Owens’ request but also granted Rifley’s request to have the examinations recorded and to have testing materials shared with her counsel. Owens argues that Rifley failed to demonstrate good cause, as required by NRCP 35(a)(3), to have the examinations recorded. Owens further argues that the dissemination of testing material cannot be permitted as it would require the examining doctor to violate governing ethics codes. Owens requests that this court order the district court to disallow the recording of the compelled examinations and disallow the sharing of testing materials with counsel. In an amicus brief, the Nevada Justice Association argues that NRCP 35(a)(3) has been abrogated by recently adopted AB 244 which grants Nevadans a statutory right to have compelled medical examinations recorded.