Wednesday, February 16, 2022 - Hardesty/Stiglich/Herndon
Garcia (Evaristo) vs. Director
Docket Number: 80255
Las Vegas - 1:30 pm - Hardesty/Stiglich/Herndon
Appellant was convicted of killing a fifteen-year-old boy outside of a school. Before his trial, appellant requested police records from four specific organizations and any other law enforcement agency. After he was convicted and his first post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, he learned that the State never provided him with police reports from the Clark County School District Police Department (CCSDPD). He then filed his second habeas corpus petition, which the district court denied. When appellant opposed the district court’s use of the State’s draft order denying the petition, the district court rescinded the order and issued its own order.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: (1) did the State withold the CCSDPD police reports; (2) was appellant’s discovery request specific or general; (3) depending on whether appellant’s discovery request was specific or general, did appellant demonstrate the CCSDPD police reports were material; (4) did appellant demonstrate the CCSDPD police reports were favorable to the defense; and (5) did the district court err when it utilized the language from the State’s draft order in issuing its own order.
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
Ventura vs. Ganser, M.D.
Docket Number: 81850
Las Vegas - 2:00 pm - Hardesty/Stiglich/Herndon
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a medical malpractice complaint for failure to attach a medical expert affidavit. Appellant filed suit alleging that respondent, a surgeon, left a foreign object in him during a previous surgery and that the surgeon’s medical practice negligently supervised him during that surgery. The district court found that appellant could not rely on Nevada’s statutory res ipsa loquitur exception to the affidavit requirement and dismissed the case without prejudice and without leave to amend.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the district court applied the correct standard when resolving the motion to dismiss; (2) whether the district court erred when it found appellant could not rely on NRS 41A.100’s res ipsa loquitur exception to the expert affidavit requirement; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.
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
MM Development Company Inc. vs. Tryke Companies SO NV, LLC.
Docket Number: 81938
Las Vegas - 3:00 pm - Hardesty/Stiglich/Herndon
This is an appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction. Tryke Companies SO NV, LLC (Tryke) and MM Development Company, Inc. (MM) are competitors in the Las Vegas cannabis industry, operating dispensaries located across the street from each other. MM’s dispensary had a policy of paying rideshare drivers to bring passengers to its dispensary through its Driver Compensation Program. Tryke filed suit against MM, alleging MM was working with rideshare drivers to illegally divert customers from Tryke’s dispensary. The district court granted Tryke’s request for a preliminary injunction, ordering “[MM] is enjoined from paying any fee or commission to rideshare service drivers in exchange for the drivers bringing passengers to [MM’s dispensary] rather than another cannabis dispensary,” as well as enjoining MM from advertising about payments to rideshare drivers for such.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are: (1) Whether the district court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction on the basis that Tryke is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims and that Tryke was threatened by irreparable harm; (2) Whether the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing; and (3) Whether the terms of the preliminary injunction were overly-broad as applied to MM and overly-narrow because the terms only apply to MM.
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