The case law in Nevada generally supports the proposition that every litigant has the right to an evidence-based adjudication of their claims by an impartial tribunal. Several cases emphasize the importance of a fair trial or hearing, and the need for litigants to have the opportunity to present their case. Other cases discuss the importance of impartiality in the judicial system, and the various procedural safeguards that are in place to ensure a fair and unbiased tribunal.
Several cases in Nevada emphasize the importance of a fair trial or hearing, and the need for litigants to have the opportunity to present their case. For example, in McDermond v. Siemens, the court discusses the importance of giving litigants a fair opportunity to present their case, including the right to a trial when there is any doubt as to the facts. The court in Miller v. Miller similarly acknowledges that while the district court has discretion in conducting a trial, it must still accord every party the “full right to be heard according to law.” Other cases discuss the importance of impartiality in the judicial system. For example, in Whitehead v. Nevada Com’n on Judicial Discipline, the court discusses the fundamental right of litigants to a fair trial or hearing before an impartial tribunal, and references several U.S. Supreme Court cases that support this principle. The court in Nev. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court also discusses the right to a civil jury trial under the Nevada constitution, and how that right may be waived under certain circumstances. This case thus touches on the right of litigants to have their claims adjudicated by an impartial tribunal. Several cases also discuss the various procedural safeguards that are in place to ensure a fair and unbiased tribunal. For example, in SOC LLC v. Rodriguez, the court cites a Nevada statute that requires a reviewing court to inquire whether an agency’s factual determinations are reasonably supported by evidence, and emphasizes the importance of a fair and impartial hearing.
Whitehead v. Nevada Com’n on Judicial Discipline, 920 P.2d 491 (Nev. 1996)
“As stated by Justice Traynor, [The] litigant has a right to objective consideration of all proper evidence by triers of fact without violations of any substantial rights he may have as a litigant. He is entitled not to a trial free of all possible error but to a trial free of harmful error. . . . . . . . [Where] the error is so forceful as to leave its mark on the judgment, the trial itself [is] contaminated.”
Weakland v. State, 96 Nev. 699 (Nev. 1980)
“Retrial is a small price to pay for insuring the right to a fair trial.”
.
“”Our judicial system guarantees every defendant a fair trial with impartial jurors deciding a case only on admissible evidence presented in court. Conduct which erodes these basic tenets will be presumed prejudicial.””
Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997 (Nev. 1997)
“Further, “public policy dictates that cases be adjudicated on their merits.” Kahn, 108 Nev. at 516, 835 P.2d at 794. However, “[l]itigants and their counsel may not properly be allowed to disregard process or procedural rules with impunity.”
Lentz v. Boles, 84 Nev. 197, 200, 438 P.2d 254, 256-57 (1968).”
“A court should exercise great care in granting summary judgment.”
Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325 (Nev. 1981)
“NRCP 56 authorizes summary judgment only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issue remains for trial. See Short, cited above; Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Becker, 95 Nev. 807, 809, 603 P.2d 268 (1979); Lipshie v. Tracy Investment Co., 93 Nev. 370, 375, 566 P.2d 819 (1977); Nevada Land Mtge. v. Hidden Wells, 83 Nev. 501, 506, 435 P.2d 198 (1967). A litigant has a right to trial where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts. Short, cited above.”
A vexatious litigant restrictive order was lifted in the Jones case
We conclude that the district court may restrict a litigant from filing petitions and motions that challenge a judgment of conviction or the litigant’s custody status pursuant to a judgment of conviction and that the guidelines set forth in Jordan adequately protect a litigant’s rights while providing instruction for the district courts as to when a restrictive order is warranted and the proper scope of a restrictive order. A court imposing access restrictions on a vexatious litigant with respect to filings that involve post-conviction challenges to a judgment of conviction or computation of time served pursuant to a judgment of conviction must: (1) provide notice of and an opportunity to oppose the proposed restrictions; (2) create an adequate record that includes a list of the filings or other reasons that led it to conclude that a restrictive order is needed, including consideration of other less onerous sanctions to curb the repetitive or abusive activities; (3) make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions; and (4) narrowly tailor the restrictions to address the specific problem and set an appropriate standard by which to measure future filings. Under the facts presented in this case, we conclude that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it determined that Jones was a vexatious litigant and entered an order restricting his access to the court. We therefore grant the petition.”
Jones v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Nev. 2014)
