Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 27, 2019

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 27, 2019

WASTE MGMT. OF NEVADA, INC. VS. WEST TAYLOR ST., LLC

  • Does reference to the mechanics’ lien statute in Nevada’s garbage lien statute, NRS 444.520(3), incorporate only the mechanics’ lien statute’s procedural requirements for foreclosure as set forth in NRS 108.239 or does that reference also incorporate requirements of perfecting a lien, as set forth in NRS 108.226.
  • Is foreclosure of a garbage lien subject to a statute of limitations.

 Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 13, 2019

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 13, 2019

KIM VS. DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC

  • Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) toll the statute of limitations for a state-law claim filed in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction while the state-law claim is pending in federal court regardless of the continuation or dismissal of other claims in that action.
  • Does the litigation malpractice tolling rule apply to non-adversarial proceedings.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Does witness testimony at trial via two-way audiovisual violate a defendant’s right to confrontation?

Picture of a person wiith a TV head

Lipsitz (Ryan) vs. State (Nev. Supreme Ct. – June 6, 2019)

Lipsitz was convicted of seven sexually related counts, including sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. He argued that the district court erred when it allowed the victim to testify by two-way audiovisual transmission, which violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Lipsitz trespassed into a residential treatment facility, where he sexually assaulted the victim, an 18-year-old patient seeking treatment for substance abuse and trauma related to her experience as a victim of sex trafficking. On the morning in question, the victim fell asleep while reading in the recreation room around 4 a.m. Approximately one hour later, the victim awoke to find Lipsitz, whom she had never seen before, standing at the end of the couch. Lipsitz exposed himself and forced the victim to have sex with him. Lipsitz then attempted to force the victim to perform fellatio on him. When he failed, he became upset, mumbled something under his breath, and walked away. Another patient and several staff members at the treatment center saw Lipsitz exiting the treatment center through the front gate. He was nearby the center when police officers found him.

Continue reading “Does witness testimony at trial via two-way audiovisual violate a defendant’s right to confrontation?”

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 6, 2019

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 6, 2019

ROSE, LLC VS. TREASURE ISLAND, LLC

  • When a written lease is otherwise silent, is the allegedly defaulting party entitled to “strict” or merely “substantial” compliance with the notice requirements set forth in the lease for declaring the party in default.

THE ORIGINAL ROOFING CO., LLC VS. CHIEF ADMIN. OFFICER OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMIN.

  • How must an employer’s knowledge of violative conduct of safety laws by a supervisor be established.

LIPSITZ (RYAN) VS. STATE

  • Does a witness’s testimony at trial via two-way audiovisual transmission violate a defendant’s right to confrontation.
  • Can a defendant be convicted of both sexual assault and attempted sexual assault based on the same conduct.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.