May 8, 2024, Oral Arguments
State, Dep’t of Bus. And Indus. Vs. Mansour
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
Fleischmann vs. Aguila (Ballot Issue)
Carson City – 11:00 a.m. – Full Court
State, Dep’t of Bus. And Indus. Vs. Mansour
Docket No. 85521
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
The Nevada Real Estate Division appeals a district court order granting respondents’ petition for judicial review of a Nevada Real Estate Commission decision. The Division argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over several of the respondents, that the Commission acted within its statutory authority in adopting NAC 645.185(11), that there were no procedural violations during agency investigations and proceedings, and that the Commission’s imposition of fines was not arbitrary and capricious. Respondents raise several issues on cross-appeal. They contend that subsection (11) is invalid because it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and because the Commission did not follow the requirements of the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act when amending it. Additionally, they argue that the commissioners were disqualified from hearing their cases and that the Commission had no jurisdiction to discipline them under NRS 645.235.
Fleischmann vs. Aguila (Ballot Issue)
Docket No. 88307
Carson City – 11:00 a.m. – Full Court
This is an appeal from a district court order denying declaratory and injunctive relief in a challenge to a ballot initiative requiring voters to provide identification or verification. Appellant Jennifer Fleischmann filed a complaint seeking to preclude a ballot initiative petition from being circulated for signatures. Below, Fleischman argued that the petition would violate Article 19 section 6 of the Nevada Constitution by failing to provide a funding mechanism for the changes proposed--including funding to assist Nevada citizens with obtaining free identification. She also argued that the description of effect was deficient. Issues: (1) Whether the complaint challenging the ballot measure is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; (2) Whether the district court erred when it denied appellant's contentions that the petition's description of effect was insufficient because it omits relevant information about the petition; and (3) Whether the initiative violated Article 19, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution by failing to provide a funding mechanism for proposed changes--including expenditure of funds to increase access to free identification.