December 27, 2007 Nevada Supreme Court Decisions
On December 27, 2007, the Nevada Supreme Court issued six published opinions:
ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks
In a case arising after a flood, during which city authorities prevented property owners from returning to their property, and thereby preventing them from saving property from the flood damage, the Nevada Supreme Court held that there was no taking of personal property, as the property was not taken for public use. Accordingly, summary judgment disposing of takings claims was affirmed. The Court also held NRS 414.110 grants immunity for acts related to preparing for emergencies, overruling prior holdings in Nylund and Vermef . However, the Court reversed the summary judgment granted to the City for claims arising from pre-emergency acts. The Court ordered the district court consider on remand whether the City is immune from suit under NRS 41.032(2) for any alleged pre-emergency gross negligence or willful misconduct by its employees, for which the City could be vicariously liable under NRS 414.110(1), and whether the City is immune from suit under NRS 41.032(2) for any alleged gross negligence, willful misconduct, or bad faith by its employees in responding to the emergency. The Court also reversed the summary judgment to the city on ASAP Stoarge, Inc Finally, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the City on ASAP Storage’s breach-of-contract claim. If, on remand, the district court is inclined to grant summary judgment on this claim, then it shall comply with the requirements of NRCP 56(c).
The Supreme Court held the doctrine of “law of the case” may yield to equitable principles. Here, in the first appeal of this matter, the court had determined that Hsu had not set forth a per se regulatory takings claim. Subsequently, under virtually identical facts, the court held otherwise in the Sisolak case. The Court determined that equity permitted the Sisolak rule to apply to this matter, entitling Hsu to appropriate just compensation.
The Supreme Court held that solicitation to commit murder cannot serve as a prior-violent-felony aggravating circumstance because it is not "[a] felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another" within the meaning of NRS 200.033(2)(b).
The Court held that district courts must comply with NRS 125.110 when sealing divorce cases. The court also held that gag orders may be issued only when: (1) disclosing activity poses a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest, (2) the order is narrowly drawn, and (3) no less restrictive means are available. In this case, the district court abused its discretion in sealing the case without compliance with the statutory requirements, in an sua sponte issuing a gag order where the requirements were not met. The district judge in question had been Judge Saitta; obviously, she did not participate in the decision. Senior Justice Agosti sat in place of Justice Saitta. The decision was unanimous.
The Court held that where the case has been dismissed pursuant to agreement of the parties, the district court does not retain jurisdiction save that generally conferred by the rules to alter, set aside, or vacate its judgment, even where the agreement provides for continuing jurisdiction of the district court.
The Court held that district courts may to bifurcate the legal and equitable claims in a single action, and first conduct a bench trial on the equitable claims. The court may also use its findings of fact and conclusions of law to dispose of claims in the legal action , provided such action is consistent with Nevada law and rules of civil procedure. Here, the district court having determined in the bench trial that no contract existed, it properly disposed of the contract claims. However, claims not dependent upon existence of a contract
