Unlike their colleagues on the United States Supreme Court, the seven justices of the Supreme Cou... more Unlike their colleagues on the United States Supreme Court, the seven justices of the Supreme Court of Nevada rarely produce close (4-3) split decisions. What makes the outcome in Nevada's Dogra v. Liles even more notable, however, is that the swing vote, and majority opinion, was provided not by one of the justices but rather by a Nevada District Court Judge who was temporarily filling a vacancy created by the recusal of Justice Michael Douglas. 1 So, what issue was at stake to create such a unique split vote? Nothing less than the rights of Nevada citizens to seek justice in their own court system against outof-state defendants. Dean Chemerinsky has often remarked on the trend in the federal court system of interpreting jurisdictional and standing doctrines in an unduly restrictive manner, which effectively closes the doors of the courthouse to the public and denies litigants access to justice. 2 The Dogra decision carries this trend into the Nevada state court system by using a restrictive interpretation of the case law surrounding the doctrine of personal jurisdiction to bar Nevada citizens from seeking justice in their home courts. The fact pattern in Dogra is relatively simple and straightforward. Jane Liles, a resident of California, purchased a car for her daughter, Susan, to use while she attended college at Cal Poly University in San Louis Obispo, California. 3 The car was registered and insured in Jane's name; however Susan was listed as the primary driver on the policy. 4 Jane admitted in deposition testimony that she placed no restrictions on Susan's use of the vehicle. 5 On August 22, 2008, while driving on Interstate 15 towards Las Vegas to attend a friend's birthday party, Susan lost control of the vehicle causing it to swerve into an adjoining lane. 6 In an attempt to avoid a collision with Susan, the driver in that
The Court reversed the District Court's grant of declaratory relief, invalidating the initiative ... more The Court reversed the District Court's grant of declaratory relief, invalidating the initiative petition and its decision to enjoin the Secretary of State from presenting the petition to the 2013 Legislature for consideration. Factual and Procedural history Appellant, PAC, seeks to enact a law known as "The Education Initiative" ("Initiative") using Nevada's ballot initiative process in order to provide a new funding source for the state's K-12 education needs. The proposed law would impose a two-percent margin tax on all Nevada businesses with gross receipts greater than $1 million. After filing the proposed initiative with the Secretary of State, the PAC began circulating petitions to gather the required number of signatures needed to place the proposal before the 2013 Legislature and, if necessary, on the 2014 general election ballot. Respondent, Committee, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the First Judicial District Court challenging the Initiative. Specifically, the Committee sought a declaration that the Initiative (1) violated N.R.S. 295.009's single-subject rule, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in multiple respects. The Committee asked the District Court to enjoin the Secretary of State from presenting the Initiative to the 2013 Legislature as the first step towards placing it on the 2014 general election ballot.
Unlike their colleagues on the United States Supreme Court, the seven justices of the Supreme Cou... more Unlike their colleagues on the United States Supreme Court, the seven justices of the Supreme Court of Nevada rarely produce close (4-3) split decisions. What makes the outcome in Nevada's Dogra v. Liles even more notable, however, is that the swing vote, and majority opinion, was provided not by one of the justices but rather by a Nevada District Court Judge who was temporarily filling a vacancy created by the recusal of Justice Michael Douglas. 1 So, what issue was at stake to create such a unique split vote? Nothing less than the rights of Nevada citizens to seek justice in their own court system against outof-state defendants. Dean Chemerinsky has often remarked on the trend in the federal court system of interpreting jurisdictional and standing doctrines in an unduly restrictive manner, which effectively closes the doors of the courthouse to the public and denies litigants access to justice. 2 The Dogra decision carries this trend into the Nevada state court system by using a restrictive interpretation of the case law surrounding the doctrine of personal jurisdiction to bar Nevada citizens from seeking justice in their home courts. The fact pattern in Dogra is relatively simple and straightforward. Jane Liles, a resident of California, purchased a car for her daughter, Susan, to use while she attended college at Cal Poly University in San Louis Obispo, California. 3 The car was registered and insured in Jane's name; however Susan was listed as the primary driver on the policy. 4 Jane admitted in deposition testimony that she placed no restrictions on Susan's use of the vehicle. 5 On August 22, 2008, while driving on Interstate 15 towards Las Vegas to attend a friend's birthday party, Susan lost control of the vehicle causing it to swerve into an adjoining lane. 6 In an attempt to avoid a collision with Susan, the driver in that
The Court reversed the District Court's grant of declaratory relief, invalidating the initiative ... more The Court reversed the District Court's grant of declaratory relief, invalidating the initiative petition and its decision to enjoin the Secretary of State from presenting the petition to the 2013 Legislature for consideration. Factual and Procedural history Appellant, PAC, seeks to enact a law known as "The Education Initiative" ("Initiative") using Nevada's ballot initiative process in order to provide a new funding source for the state's K-12 education needs. The proposed law would impose a two-percent margin tax on all Nevada businesses with gross receipts greater than $1 million. After filing the proposed initiative with the Secretary of State, the PAC began circulating petitions to gather the required number of signatures needed to place the proposal before the 2013 Legislature and, if necessary, on the 2014 general election ballot. Respondent, Committee, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the First Judicial District Court challenging the Initiative. Specifically, the Committee sought a declaration that the Initiative (1) violated N.R.S. 295.009's single-subject rule, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in multiple respects. The Committee asked the District Court to enjoin the Secretary of State from presenting the Initiative to the 2013 Legislature as the first step towards placing it on the 2014 general election ballot.
Uploads
Papers by David Rigdon