Tuesday, October 15, 2019 - Las Vegas - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, and J. Silver

White vs. State, Div. of Forestry
Docket Number: 76737
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal from an administrative proceeding before an appeals officer, which the district court subsequently affirmed.  Appellant, Darrel White was injured while incarcerated with the Nevada Department of Corrections and working for the Division of Forestry.  After his release, White was placed in a limited working status.  Respondents, Division of Forestry and its insurer, Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc., contend the calculation of White’s Average Monthly Wage of $0.50 was proper based on NRS 616C.425 (detailing the date of injury vests all rights and wages to the injured employee) and NRS 616B.028 (modifying Nevada’s worker’s compensation laws for prisoners).

ISSUES:

White challenges the calculation based on Nevada’s minimum wage law enshrined in the Nevada Constitution.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

Chandra vs. Schulte
Docket Number: 75477
Las Vegas - 11:00 a.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is a direct appeal by Appellant Sharath Chandra, Administrator of the Nevada Real Estate Division, of district court orders directing payment from the Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund (the Fund) to Respondent Melani Schulte and her LLCs for misconduct committed by her former spouse William Schulte.  In 2013, the district court granted Melani a divorce from William.  It awarded the marital assets, Sabreco, Inc. and various co-owned properties, to Melani as her separate property.  Soon after, the Nevada Real Estate Commission issued a decision against William, finding that as a licensed real estate broker at Sabreco, Inc. he committed misconduct that occurred while he was married to Melani.  Over three years later, the district court amended the decree of divorce.  It also granted final judgments against William for debts accrued when he fraudulently mismanaged properties.  These properties included ones that William and Melani co-owned at the time of William’s misconduct but were subsequently distributed to Melani as separate property.  After failing to collect from William, Melani filed nine verified petitions for orders directing payment out of the Fund, one for Melani as an individual and eight for her LLCs that owned the relevant properties.  The district court granted these petitions.

ISSUES:

Chandra appeals.  The issues are whether: 1) the spousal exception in NRS 645.844(4)(a) bars recovery; 2) the orders directing payment from the Fund are with reference to any transactions for which a real estate license is required; 3) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended decree of divorce, rendering the related judgments and the subsequent orders directing payment from the Fund void; and  4) Melani and the LLCs can collectively recover from the Fund in excess of $25,000.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

Padilla (Raymond) vs. State
Docket Number: 73353
Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Southern Nevada Panel

Appellant Raymond Padilla appeals his judgment of conviction, raising constitutional arguments regarding law enforcement’s Terry search of his vehicle.  During the search, police officers found a weapon located in the center console.

ISSUES:

Padilla argues that the district court should have bifurcated the felon and possession elements to protect against undue prejudice.  Finally, Padilla argues the district court erred by admitting prior bad act evidence, failing to grant his request for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, and improper jury instructions, and that cumulative error requires reversal.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do