Today's Nevada Supreme Court rulings
The Nevada Supreme Court today issued five published opinions:
In Rose v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the conviction of 20 counts of sexual assault on a minor under the age of fourteen. The Court rejected arguments that the evidence was insufficient, because, even though the victim could provide the exact dates she was assaulted, she did testify that the assaults occurred nearly every time she stay at the defendant’s home, and did not occur while the defendant was deployed elsewhere on military service. The Court rejected numerous other claims of error, including claims of plain error, most notable of which was the claim that the prosecutor improperly referred to the defendant as a predator during closing argument. The Court found the statement was supported by the evidence. However, Court did find that the prosecutor’s appeal for justice for the victims was improper, but did not rise to the level of plain error.
In Anvui, LLC v. G.L. Dragon, LLC, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary eviction. The Court first ruled that the standard of review of a district court’s order granting summary eviction is the same that for a order granting summary judgment. Applying that standard, the Court found the presence of ambiguity in the lease as to the remedy for default precluded summary eviction.
In Nelson v. Heer, the Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 113.140 does not require a seller to disclose defects in the property of which the seller in unaware, nor does it require the seller to disclose all past defects that have been repaired. Here, the seller was unaware that past, now repaired, water damage had led to the presence of mold on the property, and therefore, had no duty to disclose it.
In Herup v. First Boston Financial, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted an objective standard for determining a transferee knew or should have known of a debtor’s fraudulent purpose in transferring assets under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, NRS Chapter 112. Here, the sellers sold a business to the First Boston, and then respossessed it and sold it to Herup. Because the Court failed to make specific findings of fact on the issue of Herup’s good faith, the Court remanded for a new trial.
In Manwill v. Clark County, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified NRS 617.457(1), which creates a conclusive presumption that entitles firefighters with heart disease to occupational disease benefits from the date of disablement, the date of disablement occurs at least five years after full-time, uninterrupted work as a firefighter. Manwill’s heart disease pre-dated the completion of five years uninterrupted service, but his disablement did not occur until after five years of service. The Court concluded the statutory conclusive presumption applies where the disablement occurs after the requisite service. However, because in this case there was no determination of actual disablement, the matter was remanded for further administrative proceedings.
