Atkinson-Gates' family: ex-official's son, wife plead guilty. LVRJ 5/9/08

Editorial: Surely the system can do better. LVRJ 5/9/08

Feds will review issues in polygamist communities. LVRJ 5/9/08

Criminal probe into mine deaths sought. Washington Post 5/9/08

77 new cases of hepatitis are identified in Las Vegas. NYTimes 5/9/08

Halverson argues term not set to expire. LVRJ 5/8/08

Infants of inmates: protocols on babies reviewed. LVRJ 5/8/08

Inmate joins execution fight. LVRJ 5/8/08

Immunity issue spurs judge to delay Gage trial . LVRJ 5/8/08

Federal judge's decision upheld in securities case. LVRJ 5/8/08

Transgender killer torn with guilt, searching still for identity. LVSun 5/8/08

In Las Vegas Fetish and Fantasy v. Ahern Rental (my favorite case caption so far this year), the Court addresses the doctrine of unclean hands: "This appeal presents us with the opportunity to clarify the circumstances under which the unclean hands doctrine will bar a party from obtaining an equitable remedy. We now conclude that the unclean hands doctrine should only apply when the egregiousness of the party's misconduct constituting the party's unclean hands and the seriousness of the harm caused by the misconduct collectively weigh against allowing the party to obtain such a remedy. Applying our conclusion to this case, we reject appellant's contention that its abuse of process judgment against respondent automatically barred respondent from obtaining a judgment against appellant based on unjust enrichment."

In Bob Allyn Masonry v. Murphy, the Court considers whether injuries of an employee who, like Murphy, is involved in a vehicular accident while on the return journey of a special errand undertaken at the employer's request, arise out of and in the course of employment, entitling the employee to workers' compensation benefits. In so doing, the Court adopts" the street-risk rule, which provides that, when an employee is required to drive as a component of employment, the risks and hazards associated with the roadways are incident to that employment, and thus injuries sustained due to risks associated with those roadways arise out of the employment. We also clarify that our workers' compensation jurisprudence includes an employee's return journey within the special errand exception to the going and coming rule, which provides that, even though going and coming from work generally is not in the course of employment, an employee is acting within the course of employment when completing a "special errand" for the employer. Thus, depending upon the facts, an employee's injuries sustained in a vehicular accident during the return journey of a special errand may arise out of and in the course of employment."

In Attorney General v. Montero the Court will consider the propriety of a district court's order denying the AG's challenge to Montero's qualifications to serve as a district court judge. Argument is schedule for July 1. It appears that the issue presented is whether a judge must live in the judicial district for which he is elected. A Washoe County judge ruled that a Reno resident (2nd Judicial District) could be elected as a judge for the 6th Judicial District because judges are state officials and therefore only Nevada residency is required.

In Halverson v. Miller the Court orders an answer from the Secretary of State to Judge Halverson's petition which challenges the Legislature's decision to create an initial 2-year term for newly created judicial departments. She argues that she is entitled to a 6-year term. Argument is scheduled for July 1.

Congratulations on the victory to Paul Turner of the Federal Public Defender's Office.

Court overturns rape conviction. LVRJ 5/7/08

Editorial: Let's call the whole thing off (re: latest Halverson filing). LVRJ 5/7/08

Judge rejects newspaper suit over Governor's weapon permit. Nevada Appeal 5/7/08

Sex offender ruling challenged. Nevada Appeal 5/6/08

Reports From the Field - Clark County Coroner Michael Murphy. Las Vegas Now 5/6/08 (video)

Appeals court tosses rape conviction, criticizes scientist's DNA testimony. RGJ 5/7/08

Executions resume, as do questions of fairness. NYTimes 5/7/08

Lawyers for Guantanamo inmates accuse US of eavesdropping. NYTimes 5/7/08

In one flaw, questions on validity of 46 judges. Adam Liptak, NYTimes 5/6/08

Editorial: The death penalty returns. NYTimes 5/6/08

Execution is first since Supreme Court ruling. Washington Post 5/7/08

For Nevada GOP, one spectacle too many. Washington Post 5/7/08

FBI agents raid special counsel's office. LA Times 5/7/08

Man convicted in sex assault should be freed or retried, court rules. LATimes 5/6/08

Only 1/2 hour until my return flight and not a single earthquake or fire. Happy day.

Suspected pipe bomb damages courthouse in San Diego. LA Times 5/5/08

DNA matches aren't always a lock. LA Times 5/4/08

After Hiatus, States Set Wave of Executions. NY Times 5/3/08

Defense reform needed for poor. RGJ 5/5/08

Nevada judge faces removal in odd courthouse saga. Nevada Appeal 5/3/08

Prosecutors stand firm against immunity for Gage witness. LVRJ 5/3/08

Lawsuit: Change election of judges. LVRJ 5/3/08

Jurors, don't expect any shut-eye in these courts. LVSun 5/2/08

The State alleged that the first incident occurred in California and then several incidents between the defendant and his step-daughter occurred in Clark County. Eventually, after the defendant and the child's wife divorced, the child moved to California and stated that the defendant had sexually abused her. With the child's consent, and the consent of her guardians, California police officers taped a telephone call between the child and the defendant. The defendant was charged in Nevada and the telephone call was played during his trial. Had the telephone conversation taken place entirely within Nevada it would not have been admissible as Nevada requires two-party consent. California, however, requires only one party consent. The Court concludes that pursuant to NRS 48.077, which allows the admission of the contents of any communication lawfully intercepted under the laws of another jurisdiction, if the interception took place in that jurisdiction, the recording was admissible as it was permitted by California law. The Court notes that the California law enforcement officers did not act as an agent of Nevada law inforcement or with the intent to use the recordings in Nevada.

The Court also clarifies its prior opinion in Tavares v. State by holding that a defendant may waive the giving of a limiting instruction when bad act evidence is admitted at trial. The waiver must be explicit and must be made prior to introduction of the evidence. The Court finds that the district court's failure to give a limiting instruction at the time the evidence was offered here was harmless error.

As for civil cases, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a corrective opinion today, which replaces an opinion of the same name filed February 28, 2008:
Loomis v. Whitehead - "In this appeal, we address whether NRS 602.070 bars the partners of an unregistered fictitious name partnership from bringing an action arising out of a business agreement that was not made under the fictitious name. NRS 602.070 prohibits persons who fail to file an assumed or fictitious name certificate from suing on any contract or agreement made under the assumed or fictitious name. We conclude that NRS 602.070 does not bar the partners from bringing the action so long as the partners did not conduct the business or enter into an agreement under the fictitious name or otherwise mislead the other party into thinking that he was doing business with some entity other than the partners themselves."

The Court also issued new opinions:

Johanson v. District Court - "This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order sealing the entire case file and the issuance of a gag order, sua sponte, restricting all parties and their attorneys from discussing the case with the public. In this petition, we consider whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion when it ordered the entire case file sealed, without making any findings under NRS 125.110, and prohibited all communication relating to the case, without providing notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
We conclude that by failing to comply with NRS 125.110 when it sealed the entire case file, the district court manifestly abused its discretion. We also conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion when it, sua sponte, issued a gag order prohibiting all communication relating to the case, without providing reasonable notice that it was considering such a restrictive order. Gag orders may be issued only when: (1) the 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. Because here, these requirements were not met, and for the reasons stated below, we grant this petition for extraordinary writ relief."

Father & Sons v. Transp. Servs. Auth. - "NRS Chapter 706 defines fully regulated common motor carriers as including persons who hold themselves out to the public as willing to be employed to transport household goods by vehicle within Nevada. Nevada law further defines the 'transportation of household goods' as including the movement of such household goods by use of a rented vehicle that is driven by someone associated with an entity that has a commercial or financial interest in providing services related to the movement of those goods.
Based on these statutory definitions, we conclude that a company that is financially interested in providing extended referral services to the public to facilitate intrastate moves through individuals who are paid to load, drive, and unpack vehicles containing household goods may qualify as a fully regulated common motor carrier even though the company itself does not physically move the goods."

The Court has issued 25 opinions this year. The next opinion release day is Thursday, May 8.

Justice Dept. will share interrogation opinions. NYTimes 5/1/08

Immigrants challenge US system of detention. NYTimes 5/1/08

Record on warrants for spying court. NYTimes 5/1/08

Reno on edge after odd series of earthquakes. LA Times 5/1/08

Supreme Court justices open up to media. LA Times 5/1/08

Anthony Pellicano's closing fits right in with trial's oddness. LA Times 5/1/08

Suspect arrested in Minxx nightclub shooting talks from jail. KTNV4/30/08

Federal money may help build Ely juvenile facility. Ely Times 4/30/08

Former local TV host gets jail time. RGJ 5/1/08

Attorney General won't say whether governor not living in Governor's Mansion violates law. LVSun 5/1/08

Monday, May 5, 2008
46594 BOYD VS. SMITH & HARMER C/W 45180/45442
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

45442 FRANK SETTELMEYER & SONS VS. SMITH & HARMER C/W 45180/46594
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

45180 SETTELMEYER & SONS VS. SMITH & HARMER C/W 45442/46594
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

47736 NORTON VS. HAMAWI
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

46662 JACK WHITE CUSTOM HOMES VS. BURRIDGE C/W 47612
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

47612 JACK WHITE CUSTOM HOMES VS. BURRIDGE C/W 46662
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

Tuesday, May 6, 2008
48592 RANSDELL VS. CLARK COUNTY
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

49127 HOWELL VS. RICCI
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

48019 BROWNING (PAUL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY/DIRECT)
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )

It appears that Browning is the only criminal case in next week's oral arguments. The primary issue presented is whether the State is entitled to present evidence during a second penalty phase trial, which was presented at the guilt phase of the original trial, if that evidence was proven to be false during post-conviction proceedings and whether the defendant can be precluded from introducing evidence to establish the falsity of the State's evidence. The State frames this as a matter of residual doubt while the defendant (for whom I am counsel) presents this as a matter of whether the State is permitted to knowingly orchestrate the presentation of false evidence to a jury.