February 27, 2025, Oral Arguments
Lytle vs. September TR., Dated March 23,1972
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Panel B25
In RE: Goldstein Irrevocable Trust
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Panel B25
Kimmens (Matthew) vs. State
Carson City – 2:15 p.m. – Panel B25
Lytle vs. September TR., Dated March 23,1972
Docket No. 87237
Las Vegas– 11:00 a.m. – Panel B25
The Lytles appeal from an attorney’s fee award. This case has one major issue: when calculating an attorney’s fee award using the lodestar method, does a district court have the discretion to use an hourly rate multiplier that exceeds the hourly rate a lawyer’s client agreed to pay that lawyer and actually paid that lawyer? The Lytles urge that the hourly rate a client agrees to pay a lawyer in a free-market transaction is the ceiling for the reasonable hourly rate a district court may use when making its lodestar calculation. In response, September Trust argues that the attorney’s fee award is warranted under Nevada law, which grants the district court a great degree of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.
In RE: Goldstein Irrevocable Trust
Docket No. 87684
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Panel B25
Appellant filed a petition asking the court to assume jurisdiction over a trust under NRS 164.010 and to construe the trust in a way that would allow him to petition to transfer the trust situs from Missouri to Nevada without triggering the trust’s no-contest clause. The district court granted respondent Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, determining that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Bank of America, as a necessary and indispensable party. Appellant argues that the district court erred in ruling that he had to establish personal jurisdiction over Bank of America before it could assume in rem jurisdiction over the trust. Even if personal jurisdiction were required, appellant contends that Bank of America consented to personal jurisdiction by appointing an agent for service of process as a prerequisite for doing business in Nevada under NRS 14.020. Appellant also argues that Bank of America had sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
Kimmens (Matthew) vs. State
Docket No. 87934
Carson City – 2:15 p.m. – Panel B25
Matthew Kimmens appeals his conviction for five counts of arson arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion when it prohibited Kimmens from cross-examining a witness regarding that witness’s potential bias and motive to testify against Kimmens; (2) the district court abused its discretion in allowing a witness to testify regarding a post-fire threat Kimmens made to “take back” the deck he had helped construct; (3) Kimmens’ convictions for three counts of first-degree arson, all relating to a single fire, were redundant; and (4) the district court abused its discretion in awarding certain costs related to the fire suppression and investigation.