State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Barsy, 26739
| Decision Date | 17 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 26739,26739 |
| Citation | 113 Nev. 709,941 P.2d 969 |
| Parties | The STATE of Nevada, on Relation of Its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Kenneth J. BARSY; Shelby R. Seiler; Young Electric Sign Company, a Utah Corporation; Golden West Mechanical, Inc., A Nevada Corporation; Wyatt, Tieder, Killian and Hoffer, A. Virginia Partnership; Sharon L. Barsy; Land Title Company, Inc., A nevada Corporation, Coldwell Banker Commercial Real Estate Group, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; Nevada Title Company, a Nevada Corporation; Valley Bank of Nevada, a Nevada Corporation; United States of America ex rel. Its Department of Treasure and Internal Revenue Service; Clark County Treasurer; Clark County Sanitation District No 1; County of Clark, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; and all other person unknown claiming any right, title estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint, Respondents/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Respondents/cross-appellants assert that Justice Young has shown express or implied bias against Kermitt Waters, the attorney for respondents/cross-appellants, and that this is sufficient to disqualify him from hearing these cases. The basis of the claim is that Waters donated heavily to Justice Young's opponent in Justice Young's 1996 re-election campaign and that Justice Young commented that Waters' donations may have exceeded the campaign donation limits. This same argument was made and rejected in Las Vegas Downtown Redev. Agency v. Hecht, 113 Nev. 632, 940 P.2d 127 (1997), and that decision is dispositive of this ground for disqualification.
Respondents/cross-appellants also argue that Justice Young is disqualified from hearing these cases because the State of Nevada is represented by the Attorney General's office and the Attorney General endorsed and publicly supported Justice Young in the previous election. We considered essentially the same issue in Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co., 105 Nev. 237, 259, 774 P.2d 1003, 1019 (1989), where post-opinion motions challenged former Justice Elmer Gunderson's participation in the case and requested a new hearing. One ground asserted to disqualify Justice Gunderson was that Ainsworth's attorney had been a campaign co-chairman for Gunderson in a prior re-election campaign. The court concluded that legally insufficient grounds were shown to disqualify Justice Gunderson and cited several of our prior cases. The court then went on to say:
In the instant case, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
... ... participating), the correct standard? Compare State ex rel. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cir. Court for St. Croix ... Dep't of Transp. v. Barsy, 113 Nev. 709, 941 P.2d 969 (1997) (court denied ... ...
-
Ges, Inc. v. Corbitt
...v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 161, 561 P.2d 450, 452 (1977). To the extent that State, Department of Transportation v. Barsy, 113 Nev. 709, 715 n. 1, 941 P.2d 969., 113 Nev. 712, 941 P.2d 971, 973 n. 1 (1997), and Evans v. Southwest Gas, 108 Nev. 1002, 1003 n. 1, 842 P.2d 719, 720 n. 1 (1992),......
-
Nevius v. Warden
... ... WARDEN, Nevada State Prison, E.K. McDaniel; and Attorney ... General ... the reasoning set forth in State, Dep't of Transp. v. Barsy, 113 Nev. 709, 941 P.2d 969 (1997) ... ...
-
Rosales v. Byrne
... ... Gary Rosales challenges his Nevada state conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of seven ... Barsy, 113 Nev. 709, 941 P.2d 969 (1997), overruled on ... ...