| Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 Carson City - Full Court |
| Monday, 23 November 2009 08:17 | |||
|
Dozier (Scott) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty) Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full court Posas (Emilia) v. Horton (Nicole) Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full court Nevada Division of Insurance v. Payroll Solutions Group Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full court Dozier (Scott) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty), Docket No. 50817 In this appeal, Scott Dozier is challenging his conviction by a Clark County jury of first-degree murder and robbery, both with the use of a deadly weapon, and his sentence of death. The charges arose from the shooting death and taking of money from a man in Clark County. During his trial, the district court denied Dozier’s requests to give certain jury instructions, such as an instruction on the elements of voluntary manslaughter. Dozier has appealed his conviction and has raised numerous issues in the Supreme Court. ISSUES: Did the district court err in instructing the jury during the guilt and penalty phases of the trial? Did the State commit prosecutorial misconduct? (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.) Posas (Emilia) v. Horton (Nicole), Docket No. 51047 ISSUES: Did the district court err in giving a jury instruction regarding a “sudden emergency”? Should the district court have granted the motion to set aside the judgment? (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.) FACTS: This case arises out of a traffic collision. Emilia Posas was driving in Las Vegas, when a woman with a stroller started to cross the street in front of her. Posas stopped suddenly to avoid hitting the pedestrian. Nicole Horton, who was driving directly behind Posas, rear-ended Posas’s car. Both vehicles sustained major damage and Posas was transported to a local hospital by ambulance. Posas brought a tort claim against Horton. At trial, the jury was instructed regarding when a person “confronted with a sudden emergency” will not be guilty of negligence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Horton. After judgment was entered in Horton’s favor, Posas made a motion to set aside the judgment based on Horton’s expert witness admitting in a different trial that he sometimes lies under oath. Posas has appealed the judgment and the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment. Nevada Division of Insurance v. Payroll Solutions Group, Docket No. 50678 This case involves whether the Nevada Division of Insurance may regulate the activities of Payroll Solutions Group. Payroll is an employee leasing company, which is a company that contracts with client employers to provide administrative services (such as submitting tax documents and providing health care benefits) while the client employer retains operational control over employees (such as hiring and firing). The Division of Insurance sought to regulate Payroll for operating a multiple employee welfare arrangement (MEWA), because MEWAs are subject to regulation under the state’s insurance code. Payroll argued that it is the “employer” of the leased employees and its employee benefit plan should be considered a single employer plan, subject to regulation exclusively under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and not subject to state regulation. After an administrative hearing on the matter, the Division found that Payroll was not the employer of the leased employees and was therefore operating a MEWA without a certificate of authority. The Division imposed fines of over $1 million. Payroll petitioned for judicial review in the district court in Clark County, which reversed the decision of the Division, finding that Payroll was indeed the “employer” of the leased employees. The Division is appealing the district court’s decision. ISSUES: Is Payroll the “employer” of the leased employees? (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.)
|
|||
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 15:59 |
