February 25, 2026, Oral Arguments
Hambleton vs. Help Las Vegas Housing Corp. (Civil)
Boyd Law School – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Smith vs. Eiden
Boyd Law School– 10:45 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Hambleton vs. Help Las Vegas Housing Corp. (Civil)
Docket No. 89391--COA
Boyd Law School – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Respondents managed several housing complexes in Las Vegas, including Genesis, which provided sober, transitional housing for veterans, and Renaissance, which provided traditional, permanent housing for low-income individuals. The two complexes were separated by a fence with an unlocked gate, and respondents allowed tenants of Renaissance to mingle with tenants of Genesis and to eat free food on the Genesis campus.
Appellant, a Genesis resident, filed a negligence lawsuit against respondents for failing to protect him from violence by a mentally-ill tenant of Renaissance who invited appellant into his apartment to drink alcohol and then stabbed appellant in the neck as appellant was leaving. The district court granted summary judgment in respondents’ favor, finding that, even assuming a special relationship existed between the parties, the attack was unforeseeable such that respondents did not owe appellant a duty of care. Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether a special relationship existed between the parties, (2) whether the criminal attack was foreseeable, and (3) whether the criminal attack was a superseding, intervening cause of appellant’s injuries.
Smith vs. Eiden
Docket No. 88496-COA
Boyd Law School– 10:45 a.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order granting a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur in a personal injury action where the jury awarded damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident greater than the amount plaintiff’s counsel asked for during closing argument. The court granted the motion for a new trial or remittitur based on the jury manifestly disregarding the jury instructions pertaining to awarding damages. The issues on appeal include whether the court abused its discretion in granting the motion because the challenge to the award was not raised until after the jury was discharged, and because the court failed to presume the jury followed its instructions, particularly when the court appeared to acknowledge that the verdict was possible based on the evidence presented.