Skip to main content
Supreme Court of Nevada Fiat Justitia

Wednesday, January 4, 2023, Oral Arguments

January 4, 2023, Oral Arguments

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department vs. Holland

Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court

Lanier vs. District Court (Flangas)

Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department vs. Holland

Docket No. 82843

Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court

Respondent was denied occupationally related heart disease benefits under NRS 617.457 because he failed to take action to correct his predisposing conditions as directed by the examining physicians.  Respondent petitioned the district court for judicial review and the district court reversed the matter, finding that there was no evidence that respondent was informed how to correct his predisposing conditions or that correction was within his ability.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, and we granted appellant’s petition for review.  The issues on appeal are: (1) which party bears the burden of proof under NRS 617.457(11) and (2) what are the requirements under NRS 617.457(11)?

Lanier vs. District Court (Flangas)

Docket No. 84220

Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court

The underlying action was filed in August 2015.  Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Eighth Judicial District entered an order staying all jury trials in March 2020.  The district court then entered an order tolling NRCP 41(e) for this case in October 2020 until the court could set the matter for a trial. Thereafter in December 2020 the district court set the matter for a June 2021 trial.  That trial setting was vacated in May 2021.  The district-wide stay order expired on July 1, 2021.  In October 2021, the district court set the matter for a trial in February 2022.  Petitioners moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution in December 2021, a day after they assert the five-year period from NRCP 41(e) expired, after considering the district-wide stay.  The district court denied that motion concluding that its October 2020 order had stayed the matter until October 2021, which meant the petitioners’ motion was premature.  ISSUES: (1) was the October 2020 order a stay order; (2) if the October 2020 order was a stay order, when did it expire; and (3) did the cushion period after a district-wide stay order included in the amended NRCP 41(e) apply here.