Tag: NRS 128.109

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 2, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 2, 2018

COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE

  • Does the Parole Board’s use of the Static-99R recidivism risk assessment comply with the relevant statutory provisions governing parole review for prisoners convicted of sexual offenses.

SHORES VS. GLOBAL EXPERIENCE SPECIALISTS, INC.

  • Must a noncompete agreement that imposes a nationwide restriction be limited to the geographical areas in which an employer has particular business interests.

N. NEVADA HOMES, LLC VS. GL CONSTR., INC.

  • What is the proper method of determining the prevailing party when faced with both a settlement and a damages recovery.

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.L., N.R.B., H.R.B., W.C.B. C/W 71889

  • Does the termination of parental rights bases on the parents’ refusal to admit to abuse violate their Fifth Amendment rights.

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (NRAP 5)

  • Does NRS 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS 107.090 require a homeowner’s association to provide notices of default and/or sale to persons or entities holding a subordinate interest even when such persons or entities did not request notice, prior to the amendment that took effect on October 1, 2015.

GRANADA-RUIZ (GAMBINO) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • When does double jeopardy prohibit a retrial.

CLARK CTY. VS. HQ METRO, LLC

  • Does an order for immediate occupancy permitting a party to occupy a permanent easement vest a right to compensation.

NEVADA RECYCLING AND SALVAGE, LTD VS. RENO DISPOSAL CO., INC.

  • Were the appellants injured in their business and therefore have standing to assert their claim under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act (UTPA).

HUBBARD (CORY) VS. STATE

  • Must the defense place intent or absence of mistake at issue before the State can seek admission of prior act evidence.

RIPPO (MICHAEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

MENDENHALL VS. TASSINARI

  • Are claims that are brought by the offering party in a second action, and arise out of facts that were discovered after serving the NRCP 68 offer, barred by general principles of claim preclusion or by the very terms of the NRCP 68 offer.

HUMPHRIES VS. NEW YORK-NEW YORK HOTEL & CASINO, LLC

  • When does an innkeeper owe a duty of care for on premises injuries caused by third parties because the wrongful act of a third party was foreseeable.

SWEAT (LONNIE) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • Does a defendant who pleads guilty to a lesser charge pursuant to a plea agreement and fails to comply with the terms of that agreement, waive his or her right to be protected from prosecution on a greater charge.

WILLIAMS (JESSICA) VS. STATE, DEP’T OF CORR.

  • Do credits earned pursuant to NRS 209.4465 apply to eligibility for parole as provided in NRS 209.4465(7)(b) where the offender was sentenced pursuant to a statute that requires a minimum term of not less than a set number of years, but does not mention parole eligibility.

FREDIANELLI VS. MARTINEZ

  • Can an attorney actively enforce a retaining lien.
  • Is an affirmative recovery necessary in the retaining lien context.
  • Can a retaining lien be reduced to a monetary judgment.

JOHNSON (DONTE) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)

  • Must a defendant file a postconviction petition within one year after remittitur issued on direct appeal from his original judgment of conviction where the direct appeal resulted in reversal and remand for another penalty hearing such that his sentences were unsettled.

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.D.L. AND C.L.B., JR.

  • Are a parent’s Fifth Amendment rights violated when he or she is required to admit to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

When can a court terminate parental rights?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

In re Parental Rights as to A.P.M. (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Sep. 10, 2015)

The issues are (1) whether the district court may terminate the parental rights of a parent who has completed a case plan for reunification and (2) whether the district court must wait the entire 20 months before applying both the presumption of token efforts in NRS 128.109(1)(a) and the presumption that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child in NRS 128.109(2).

Arli and his wife Abigail had three children together: J.M., A.P.M., and E.M.M. From July 2006 to November 2011, seven separate incidents occurred in which one of the three children swallowed foreign objects, such as coins, magnets, and batteries. All of these swallowing incidents happened while Arli was at work and Abigail was at home with the children. On the latest occasion, doctors had to surgically remove a large battery that was lodged in E.M.M.’s throat. Following E.M.M.’s surgery, the doctors grew concerned that Abigail was forcing her children to swallow foreign objects. The doctors explained that three-year-old E.M.M. swallowing the large battery was the equivalent of an adult swallowing a golf ball, making it highly unlikely that he swallowed it on his own. Due to their concerns, the doctors initiated a child protective services investigation.

In November 2011, the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) removed A.P.M. and E.M.M. from their parents’ home pursuant to NRS Chapter 432B. In July 2012, the juvenile court entered an order granting DFS legal custody of the children, and the children were placed in foster care. Arli and Abigail were issued case plans containing objectives for them to complete in order to regain custody of their children. Arli’s case plan required that he take parenting classes and participate in counseling. Almost immediately, Arli successfully completed the parenting classes and was participating in the required counseling. Despite these efforts, however, the juvenile court reviewed Arli’s and Abigail’s progress and determined that the children should remain in foster care.

Continue reading “When can a court terminate parental rights?” →