abuse of discretion standard in Nevada

2015"A district court's decision to grant or deny a writ petition is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard." DR Partners v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Clark County, 116 Nev. 616 , 621, 6 P.3d 465, 468 (2000).

2006See DR Partners v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 116 Nev 616, 621, 6 P3d 465, 468 (2000) (“A district court’s decision to grant or deny a writ petition is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2015See Jitnan, 127 Nev. at , 254 P.3d at 628-29 ; Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 795-96 , 121 P.3d 567, 578 (2005); see also Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E. 2d 23, 30-31 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decisions regarding challenges for cause to both seated jurors and venirepersons).

2015See Jitnan, 127 Nev. at , 254 P.3d at 628-29 ; Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 795-96 , 121 P.3d 567, 578 (2005); see also Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E. 2d 23, 30-31 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decisions regarding challenges for cause to both seated jurors and venirepersons).

2025Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23, 30-31 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (applying the abuse-of-discretion standard to decisions regarding challenges for cause to both seated jurors and venirepersons).

2023See Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 795-96, 121 P.3d 567, 578 (2005) (reviewing a for-cause challenge against a prospective juror for an abuse of discretion); see also Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23, 30- 31 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decisions regarding challenges for cause to both seated jurors and venirepersons).

2023See Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 795-96, 121 P.3d 567, 578 (2005) (reviewing a for-cause challenge against a prospective juror for an abuse of discretion); see also Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23, 30- 31 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decisions regarding challenges for cause to both seated jurors and venirepersons).

2023See Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 795-96, 121 P.3d 567, 578 (2005) (reviewing a for-cause challenge against a prospective juror for an abuse of discretion); see also Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23, 30- 31 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decisions regarding challenges for cause to both seated jurors and venirepersons).

2021"This court reviews a district court's decision to admit or exclude prior-bad-act evidence under an abuse of discretion standard." Newman v. State, 129 Nev. 222, 231 , 298 P.3d 1171, 1178 (2013).

2021"This court reviews a district court's decision to admit or exclude prior-bad-act evidence under an abuse of discretion standard." Newman v. State, 129 Nev. 222, 231 , 298 P.3d 1171, 1178 (2013).

2018NRCP 37 sanctions Under NRCP 37(b)(2)(C), when a party fails to make a discovery disclosure pursuant to NRCP 16.1, the district court may make "[a]n order striking out pleadings or parts thereof ... or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party." In Young , we articulated the abuse-of-discretion standard with regard to discovery sanctions: The factors a court may properly consider include, but are not limited to, the degree of willfulness of the offending party, the extent to which the non-offending party would be p

2018NRCP 37 sanctions Under NRCP 37(b)(2)(C), when a party fails to make a discovery disclosure pursuant to NRCP 16.1, the district court may make "[a]n order striking out pleadings or parts thereof ... or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party." In Young , we articulated the abuse-of-discretion standard with regard to discovery sanctions: The factors a court may properly consider include, but are not limited to, the degree of willfulness of the offending party, the extent to which the non-offending party would be p

2019See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570 , 138 P.3d 433, 444 (2006) (reviewing a decision on a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion); see also Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90 , 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010) (explaining that, under an abuse of discretion standard, this court will "not substitut[e] its own judgment for that of the district court" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2019See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570 , 138 P.3d 433, 444 (2006) (reviewing a decision on a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion); see also Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90 , 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010) (explaining that, under an abuse of discretion standard, this court will "not substitut[e] its own judgment for that of the district court" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2015AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589 , 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010).

2015AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589 , 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010).

2024Although the abuse of discretion standard applies to the order granting or denying a new trial, Michaels, 131 Nev. at 814, 357 P.3d at 395, de novo review applies to the issue of whether attorney misconduct occurred, Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 364 , 212 P.3d 1068, 1078 (2009).

2024Although the abuse of discretion standard applies to the order granting or denying a new trial, Michaels, 131 Nev. at 814, 357 P.3d at 395, de novo review applies to the issue of whether attorney misconduct occurred, Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 364 , 212 P.3d 1068, 1078 (2009).

2020"This court reviews a district court's decision to admit or exclude [other] -bad-act evidence under an abuse of discretion standard,".Newman v. State, 129 Nev. 222, 231, 298 P.3d 1171, 1178 (2013), and will not reverse except on "a showing that the decision is manifestly incorrect." Rhymes v. State, 121 Nev. 17, 21-22, 107 P.3d 1278, 1281 (2005).

2020"This court reviews a district court's decision to admit or exclude [other] -bad-act evidence under an abuse of discretion standard,".Newman v. State, 129 Nev. 222, 231, 298 P.3d 1171, 1178 (2013), and will not reverse except on "a showing that the decision is manifestly incorrect." Rhymes v. State, 121 Nev. 17, 21-22, 107 P.3d 1278, 1281 (2005).

2013Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197 , 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnote omitted); see NRS 34.160. “ ‘A district court’s decision to grant or deny a writ petition is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard.’ However, questions of statutory construction, including the meaning and scope of a statute, are questions of law, which this court reviews de novo.” City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 , 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003) (quoting DR Partners v. Bd. of Cnty.

2013Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197 , 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnote omitted); see NRS 34.160. “ ‘A district court’s decision to grant or deny a writ petition is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard.’ However, questions of statutory construction, including the meaning and scope of a statute, are questions of law, which this court reviews de novo.” City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 , 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003) (quoting DR Partners v. Bd. of Cnty.

2019LLC , 121 So.3d 511 , 519 (Fla. 2013) ("Trial courts' judgments pertaining to set asides of judicial foreclosure sales are now, as they always have been, subject to review by way of an abuse of discretion standard.").

2019LLC, 121 So. 3d 511, 519 (Fla. 2013) ("Trial courts' judgments pertaining to set asides of judicial foreclosure sales are now, as they always have been, subject to review by way of an abuse of discretion standard.").

2017See Sessions v. State, 106 Nev. 186, 190 , 789 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1990).

2017See Sessions v. State, 106 Nev. 186, 190 , 789 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1990).

2018In this context, the abuse of discretion standard turns on the question of whether the finding of manifest necessity is one "a rational jurist could have made based on the record." United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073 , 1083 (9th Cir. 2008).

2018In this context, the abuse of discretion standard turns on the question of whether the finding of manifest necessity is one "a rational jurist could have made based on the record." United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008).

2006Co., 98 Nev. 488, 492 , 653 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1982)); see also Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 676 , 856 P.2d 560, 564 (1993) (noting that NRCP 11 sanctions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). 41 See NRS 18.010(2)(b); NRCP 11.

2006Co., 98 Nev. 488, 492 , 653 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1982)); see also Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 676 , 856 P.2d 560, 564 (1993) (noting that NRCP 11 sanctions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). 41 See NRS 18.010(2)(b); NRCP 11.

2026DISCUSSION While sentencing decisions trigger an abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009), statutory interpretation issues are reviewed de novo, Harvey v. State, 136 Nev. 539 , 541, 473 P.3d 1015 , 1018 (2020).

2026DISCUSSION While sentencing decisions trigger an abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009), statutory interpretation issues are reviewed de novo, Harvey v. State, 136 Nev. 539 , 541, 473 P.3d 1015 , 1018 (2020).

2023COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 9 1q4711 As this court has previously recognized in other contexts, "the disclosure of an active and ongoing criminal investigation rnay jeopardize the integrity of the investigation itself by revealing to a suspect that he or she is being investigated, how the investigation is being conducted, and by whom." In re Execution of Search Warrants (Anderson), 134 Nev. 799 , 807, 435 P.3d 672, 678 (Ct. App. 2018).

2023COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 9 1q4711 As this court has previously recognized in other contexts, "the disclosure of an active and ongoing criminal investigation rnay jeopardize the integrity of the investigation itself by revealing to a suspect that he or she is being investigated, how the investigation is being conducted, and by whom." In re Execution of Search Warrants (Anderson), 134 Nev. 799 , 807, 435 P.3d 672, 678 (Ct. App. 2018).

2022See Kantor v. Kantor, 116 Nev. 886 , 896, 8 P.3d 825, 831 (2000) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to an order awarding attorney fees and costs); see also NRS 18.010(1) (providing that a district _ court may award attorney fees as provided for in an agreement between the parties or as authorized by a statute).

2022See Kantor v. Kantor, 116 Nev. 886 , 896, 8 P.3d 825, 831 (2000) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to an order awarding attorney fees and costs); see also NRS 18.010(1) (providing that a district _ court may award attorney fees as provided for in an agreement between the parties or as authorized by a statute).

2022Homeowners' Ass'n v. Steward Venture, LLC, 129 Nev. 181, 191 , 300 P.3d 124, 130-31 (2013) (reviewing an appeal from an order denying a motion for leave to amend under an abuse of discretion standard).

2022Homeowners' Ass'n v. Steward Venture, LLC, 129 Nev. 181, 191 , 300 P.3d 124, 130-31 (2013) (reviewing an appeal from an order denying a motion for leave to amend under an abuse of discretion standard).

2021Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. 503 , 505, 422 P.3d 1238, 1241 (2018) (reviewing the denial of preliminary injunctive relief under an abuse of discretion standard and for clear factual or legal error).

2021Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. 503 , 505, 422 P.3d 1238, 1241 (2018) (reviewing the denial of preliminary injunctive relief under an abuse of discretion standard and for clear factual or legal error).

2020This court reviews judicial disqualification matters under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rivero SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (o) (947A .214110. v. Rivera, 125 Nev. 410, 439 , 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009), and none appears here.

2020This court reviews judicial disqualification matters under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rivero SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (o) (947A .214110. v. Rivera, 125 Nev. 410, 439 , 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009), and none appears here.

2020Funches v. State, 113 Nev. 916, 923, 944 P.2d 775, 779 (1997).

2020Funches v. State, 113 Nev. 916, 923, 944 P.2d 775, 779 (1997).

2019See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570 , 138 P.3d 433, 444 (2006) (reviewing a decision on a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion); see also Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90 , 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010) (explaining that, under an abuse of discretion standard, this court will "not substitut[e] its own judgment for that of the district court" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2019See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570 , 138 P.3d 433, 444 (2006) (reviewing a decision on a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion); see also Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90 , 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010) (explaining that, under an abuse of discretion standard, this court will "not substitut[e] its own judgment for that of the district court" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017United States v. Hellems, 866 F.3d 856, 863-64 (8th Cir. 2017); cf. Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997, 1001-02 , 946 P.2d 148, 150 (1997) (holding in an analogous context that "[a] defendant may be denied his right of self-representation if he or she is unable or unwilling to abide by rules of courtroom procedure" and that, because the trial court judge has "the opportunity to observe" the defendant's "demeanor and conduct" first-hand, "[t]his court will not substitute its evaluation for that of the district court judge's own personal observations and impressions"). "[C]ourts must indulge every

2017United States v. Hellems, 866 F.3d 856, 863-64 (8th Cir. 2017); cf. Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997, 1001-02, 946 P.2d 148, 150 (1997) (holding in an analogous context that "[a] defendant may be denied his right of self-representation if he or she is unable or unwilling to abide by rules of courtroom procedure" and that, because the trial court judge has "the opportunity to observe" the defendant's "demeanor and conduct" first-hand, "[t]his court will not substitute its evaluation for that of the district court judge's own personal observations and impressions"). "[C]ourts must indulge every r

2017United States v. Hellems, 866 F.3d 856, 863-64 (8th Cir. 2017); cf. Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997, 1001-02, 946 P.2d 148, 150 (1997) (holding in an analogous context that "[a] defendant may be denied his right of self-representation if he or she is unable or unwilling to abide by rules of courtroom procedure" and that, because the trial court judge has "the opportunity to observe" the defendant's "demeanor and conduct" first-hand, "[t]his court will not substitute its evaluation for that of the district court judge's own personal observations and impressions"). "[C]ourts must indulge every r

2017United States v. Hellems, 866 F.3d 856, 863-64 (8th Cir. 2017); cf. Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997, 1001-02, 946 P.2d 148, 150 (1997) (holding in an analogous context that "[a] defendant may be denied his right of self-representation if he or she is unable or unwilling to abide by rules of courtroom procedure" and that, because the trial court judge has "the opportunity to observe" the defendant's "demeanor and conduct" first-hand, "[t]his court will not substitute its evaluation for that of the district court judge's own personal observations and impressions"). "[C]ourts must indulge every r

2017Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198, 209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009).

2017Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198, 209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009).

2022Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it adraitted the statements Fletcher made to Dr. Piasecki.5 McLellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267, 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to district court decisions to admit or exclude evidence).6 Based on the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

2022Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it adraitted the statements Fletcher made to Dr. Piasecki.5 McLellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267, 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to district court decisions to admit or exclude evidence).6 Based on the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

2019Op. 47, 420 P.3d 1032, 1035 (2018), we held that the first deed of trust holder's failure to allege prejudice resulting from the HONs failure to mail notice of default to its assignor "dooms its claim that the defective notice [of default] invalidates the HOA sale." And in Schleining v. Cap One, Inc., 130 Nev. 323 , 330-31, 326 P.3d 4 , 8-9 (2014), we upheld on an abuse-of-discretion standard a district court's determination that a lender's "substantial compliance with NRS 107.095 (2009) (amended by 2019 Nev.

2019Op. 47, 420 P.3d 1032 , 1035 (2018), we held that the first deed of trust holder's failure to allege prejudice resulting from the HOA's failure to mail notice of default to its assignor "dooms its claim that the defective notice [of default] invalidates the HOA sale." And in Schleining v. Cap One, Inc., 130 Nev. 323 , 330-31, 326 P.3d 4 , 8-9 (2014), we upheld on an abuse-of-discretion standard a district court's determination that a lender's "substantial compliance" with NRS 107.095 (2009) (amended by 2019 Nev.