Nevada Judiciary

Foster vs. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty
 
Exposure Graphics vs. Rapid Mounting Display
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

State vs. Barren
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

In re: George J., a Minor
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty


Foster vs. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Docket No. 55284
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty
This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a tort action.  In October 2005, Stephen Foster visited a Costco Wholesale store in Henderson, Nevada.  The paper goods aisle contained approximately three or four wooden pallets.  Upon browsing through the aisle, Foster fell after catching his toe on the corner of a pallet, which was covered by a slightly turned box.  Foster admits that he was aware of the pallets before he entered the aisle, but he maintains that he did not see the corner of the pallet as it was obscured by a box.  Foster then filed a complaint against Costco for negligence.  Costco filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it is not liable for injuries arising from an open and obvious hazard that Foster was not justified in encountering, and that a condition can remain open and obvious even when partially concealed.  The district court submitted an order granting summary judgment and declaring that Costco was under no duty to warn Foster or to remedy an open and obvious condition.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court misapply Nevada law regarding a landowner’s duty when obvious dangers are present?  (2) Did material issues of fact remain that should have precluded the district court from granting summary judgment in favor of Costco?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)


Exposure Graphics vs. Rapid Mounting Display
Docket No. 54069
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court amended judgment in a contract and tort action.  Appellant/cross-respondent Exposure Graphics, Inc. and respondent/cross-appellant Rapid Displays, Inc. entered into an agreement for the production and storage of 30,000 alien standees, also known as cardboard cut-outs.  Their contractual relationship soured when Exposure’s alien standee venture proved to be unsuccessful.  Moreover, Rapid did not complete the manufacturing of the 30,000 standees, invoiced Exposure for work it did not perform, invoiced Exposure for storage when it did not complete the standees and, ultimately, destroyed a substantial amount of the remaining inventory without authorization.  Exposure filed a complaint against Rapid for breach of contract and conversion, among other claims.  In December 2002, Exposure served an offer of judgment on Rapid, which Rapid declined.  The offer of judgment did not include punitive damages.  Subsequently, in April 2003, Exposure amended its complaint to include punitive damages.  After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of Exposure, awarding it compensatory and punitive damages at a 2.5:1 ratio.  The district court also awarded attorney fees under NRCP 68.  In February 2008, this court issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding, holding that the district court’s punitive damages award was excessive and that the district court’s award of attorney fees required further analysis.  In light of this court’s disposition, the district court recalculated the punitive damages award to a 2.1:1 ratio and found that Exposure’s offer of judgment was timely, reasonable, and made in good faith.  In addition, the district court denied attorney fees incurred by Exposure in the appellate process and for attorney fees for work performed by a law clerk.  ISSUES:  (1) Is the revised punitive damages award excessive?  (2) Did the district court err in granting attorney fees to Exposure under NRCP 68?  (3) Did the district court err in denying Exposure attorney fees on a prior appeal?  (4) Did the district court err in denying Exposure attorney fees for work performed by a law clerk?  (5) Should this matter be assigned to a different department if this court remands for further proceedings in the district court?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)


State vs. Barren
Docket No. 57115
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty
Respondent Gregory Barren allegedly committed several offenses when he was 17 years of age, but was not identified as the alleged perpetrator until he was 21 years of age.  After Barren was identified, but before the State of Nevada brought charges against him, the Legislature amended NRS 62B.330, which divests a juvenile court of jurisdiction over any person who committed an offense as a juvenile but is not identified until after reaching 21 years of age.  The justice court found that based on NRS 62B.330, as amended, it had jurisdiction over Barren’s case.  However, the district court found that NRS 62B.330, as amended, did not apply retroactively to Barren’s case, and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction.  The State now appeals.  ISSUES: (1) Would a district court have jurisdiction over this case absent the amendments to NRS 62B.330?  (2) Does NRS 62B.330, as amended, grant a district court jurisdiction over this case?  (3) If NRS 62B.330 must be applied retroactively to govern this case, does such retroactive application constitute an ex post facto violation?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)


In re: George J., a Minor
Docket No. 57233
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty
This is an appeal from a juvenile court order transferring a juvenile case for adult criminal proceedings.  When appellant George J. was 17 years of age, he allegedly committed several delinquent acts.  George was identified and charged as the perpetrator of those acts when he was between the ages of 20 years, 3 months and 21 years, but was not apprehended until after he reached 21 years of age.  The juvenile court conducted a transfer hearing pursuant to newly-enacted NRS 62B.335(1), which grants a juvenile court jurisdiction to conduct a transfer hearing over a person who is identified before reaching 21 years of age but is not apprehended until after reaching 21 years of age.  The juvenile court transferred the case for adult criminal proceedings based on the factors set forth in NRS 62B.335(5).  George appeals.  ISSUES: (1) Which statute, NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(1) or NRS 62B.335, governs jurisdiction in George’s case?  (2) Does the governing statute apply retroactively?  (3) Is retroactive application an ex post facto violation?  (4) If NRS 62B.335 governs, did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in transferring this case for adult criminal proceedings?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)