Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 18, 2018

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 18, 2018

MULKERN VS. DIST. CT. (CLARK CTY. DEP’T OF FAMILY SERV.’S)

  • Does NRS 432B.550(5)(a)’s sibling presumption apply after one of the siblings has been adopted.

PUB. EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYS. OF NEVADA VS. NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INST., INC.

  • Does the Nevada Public Records Act require the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS) to disclose certain employment and pension payment information about its government retirees held in its computer database when sought through a public records request.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 5, 2018

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 5, 2018

STATE VS. SAMPLE (GREGORY)

  • Does a preliminary breath test that is not administered pursuant to a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, violate the Fourth Amendment.
  • Is a telephonic search warrant that contains a false statement valid.

KIRSCH VS. TRABER

  • What is the definition of a “final judgment.”

NANCE V. FERRARO

  • Is a district court barred from reviewing the facts and evidence underpinning its prior rulings or custody determinations in deciding whether the modification of a prior custody order is in the child’s best interest.
  • Are parties prohibited from presenting previously known domestic violence evidence defensively to show modification to a custody determination is not in the child’s best interest.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 26, 2017

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 26, 2017

ARCELLA VS. ARCELLA (CHILD CUSTODY)

  • What weight should a court afford to one parent’s objection to a child receiving a religious education.

STATE, DEP’T. OF BUS. AND INDUS., FIN. INST. DIV. VS. DOLLAR LOAN CTR., LLC

  • Can a payday loan licensee sue to collect on the recovery of a loan made for the purpose of refinancing prior loans under NRS 604A.480(2).

FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATT

  • Does the exception to immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct survive the Supreme Court of Nevada’s adoption of the federal discretionary-function immunity test.
  • Is the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (FTB) entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap on damages a similarly situated Nevada agency would be entitled to in similar circumstances.
  • Is it reasonable to provide FTB with the same protection of California law, to the extent that it does not conflict with Nevada law, to grant FTB immunity from punitive damages.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.