August 6 , 2026, Oral Arguments
Mercer vs. Candelaria (Ballot Issue)
Las Vegas– 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
City of Sparks vs. Bluth (Civil)
Las Vegas– 11:00 a.m. – Full Court
Herndon vs. City of Henderson
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Mercer vs. Candelaria (Ballot Issue)
Docket No. 92621
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Acting on guidance from a Clark County Election Department filing officer that email filing was authorized, respondent/cross-appellant Amber Lynn Candelaria filed her declaration of candidacy for district court judge by email. Appellant/cross-respondent Michelle Mercer challenged Candelaria’s candidacy under NRS 293.182. The district court concluded Mercer could challenge Candelaria’s candidacy pursuant to NRS 293.182, but the court rejected the challenge on the ground that the filing officer had discretion over the method of filing a declaration of candidacy. The district court denied Candelaria’s request for attorney fees and costs. Mercer appealed and Candelaria cross-appealed. ISSUES: (1) can the process outlined in NRS 293.182 be utilized to challenge a candidate’s compliance with filing requirements; (2) does NAC 293.0604 provide an exhaustive list of how to file a declaration of candidacy that leaves no administrative discretion; (3) could Candelaria rely on the filing officer’s instructions; (4) did Candelaria substantially comply with the filing requirements; and (5) did the district court properly deny Candelaria’s request for attorney fees and costs.
City of Sparks vs. Bluth (Civil)
Docket No. 90244
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Full Court
The City of Sparks and the City of Reno each denied a request under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA) seeking documentation from a pending Sparks Police Department investigation of a Reno Police Department officer. Both entities claimed the records were confidential because they were connected to an active investigation expected to lead to criminal prosecution. The district court agreed but, because the requester was an alleged victim of the officer’s misconduct, ordered both police departments to release documents related to the requester, subject to redactions of information that might identity people involved in the case or thwart the investigation. The City of Sparks appeals, arguing that complete nondisclosure is justified.
Herndon vs. City of Henderson
Docket No. 88497
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment and post-judgment orders denying a motion for a new trial and granting in part a motion for costs in a civil action. The underlying lawsuit, against the City of Henderson and Sgt. Gillis (collectively, the City), arose from an incident where Sgt. Gillis and other law enforcement personnel tried to detain a suspect accused of stealing items from a Sportsman’s Warehouse. During the scuffle, an employee of Sportsman’s Warehouse, appellant/cross-respondent Jim Herndon, attempted to aid law enforcement in detaining the suspect. As a result, Herndon sustained injuries. This civil rights action went to a jury trial where Herndon was awarded damages. Following entry of final judgment by the district court, Herndon appealed, arguing that he was entitled to un-capped damages and attorney fees as a result of his success at trial. The City filed a cross-appeal, arguing that an erroneous jury instruction and verdict form require a new trial.