March 6, 2024, Oral Arguments
Conrad vs. City of Reno
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Nevadans For Reproductive Freedom vs. Washington
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full Court
In RE: Guardianship of C. A.C., A.M.C., and C.A.C. (Child Custody)
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
In RE: Matter of J.B.
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Conrad vs. City of Reno
Docket No. 86340
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
This is an appeal from a district court order granting in part and denying in part Robert Conrad’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the City of Reno to comply with provisions of the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA). Conrad made several record requests from the City under the NPRA, including a request for City Councilmember Devon Reese’s social media communications and three requests for bodycam footage related to ongoing criminal investigations. The district court denied the petition as to Councilmember Reese because, though the communications were public, the City did not have control over them. The district court denied the request for bodycam footage because it found that the City complied with the NPRA. The issues on appeal are whether: (1) the City was in substantial control of Councilmember Reese’s social media communications; (2) the City violated the NPRA by not giving ongoing notice per NRS 239.0107(1) and by providing only nominal reference to the balancing test; and (3) the district court erred by not reviewing the individual records on review.
Nevadans For Reproductive Freedom vs. Washington
Docket No. 87681
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full Court
Appellant seeks to place an initiative on the ballot that would amend the Nevada Constitution to recognize a right to reproductive freedom. Respondents Donna Washington and Coalition for Parents and Children challenged the initiative, and the district court granted their request to enjoin respondent Secretary of State from placing the initiative on the ballot. ISSUES: (1) does the initiative comply with the statutory single-subject requirement; (2) does the initiative’s description of effect comply with statutory requirements; and (3) is the initiative an unfunded mandate that violates Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution.
In RE: Guardianship of C. A.C., A.M.C., and C.A.C. (Child Custody)
Docket No. 86229
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Full Court
This appeal challenges a district court order denying a natural mother’s petition to terminate a guardianship over her minor children after applying NRS 159A.1915—a statute that imposes two burdens on the parent, one of which only applies when the parent did not originally consent to the guardianship. Finding that the natural mother did not consent, the district court applied the statute’s heightened burden to show that termination of the guardianship would substantially enhance the children’s welfare and denied the petition. The natural mother now challenges this decision and the statute as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In RE: Matter of J.B.
Docket No. 87588
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
After the minor child was removed from his parents, he was placed with a family friend. Once paternity was determined, DFS commenced the process to have the nonresident paternal grandfather approved as a placement option for the child. Once approved, the district court ordered the child be placed with the grandfather because the family friend could not be considered fictive kin and the familial relationship prevailed in terms of placement preference. Petitioners challenge that placement order. ISSUES: (1) can a fictive kin relationship be created through placement, (2) did the district court arbitrarily and capriciously determine that the familial preference required the child be placed with the grandfather absent an evidentiary hearing, and (3) could the district court modify the child’s placement if the child’s attorney was not present at the hearing?