June 12, 2024, Oral Arguments
George vs. Winkler
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Stiglich/Pickering/Parraguirre
State vs. Davis (Atoris)
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Stiglich/Pickering/Parraguirre
George vs. Winkler
Docket No. 85318
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Stiglich/Pickering/Parraguirre
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court’s amended finding of facts, conclusions of law, and judgment, and an appeal from an order denying appellant’s costs in a water rights matter. On appeal, appellants/cross-respondents argue that the district court erred by granting only one of two requested easements. They argue that both easements, not just the one ordered, are needed to remedy the impairment of their water rights resulting from the respondent/cross-appellants’ construction and resultant altered surface flows. They also argue that the district court should have awarded costs as they qualify as the prevailing party. Respondents/cross-appellants appeal the imposition of a rotation schedule to regulate the water now flowing through the court-ordered ditch easement, arguing that the district court could not impose the schedule without the joinder or consent of the “necessary parties”—nearby neighbors.
State vs. Davis (Atoris)
Docket No. 87371
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Stiglich/Pickering/Parraguirre
The State charged Atoris Davis with, among other things, robbery and first-degree kidnapping. Davis petitioned for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus, arguing in part that the three first-degree kidnapping charges were incidental to the alleged robbery and should be dismissed. The district court granted the petition as to two of the first-degree kidnapping charges and left the other charges in place. The State appeals the district court’s partial grant of Davis’s habeas petition.