Out of state drivers shielded, NOTC wins again

A Dec. 26 Nevada Supreme Court ruling is attracting attention in the legal community around the nation. Dogra v. Liles is a case arising from a chain reaction wreck in which a California college student was driving her mother's car in southern Nevada on her way to a friend's birthday in Las Vegas when she lost control of the car, with three additional vehicles involved in the ensuing accident.

The car, which had been turned over to the daughter for her use while in college, had insurance in the mother's name. Because of the extensive damage, the policy's compensation limits were exceeded, and there were various legal actions to sort out who got what portions of the insurance. Eventually, a case came to the Nevada Supreme Court to determine whether the mother, a California resident, could be held accountable in the jurisdiction of Nevada courts because she allowed her daughter unrestricted use of the car.

Justice Michael Douglas recused himself from the case for unknown reasons, and he was replaced by District Court Judge Patrick Flanagan of Washoe County, who ended up writing the court's majority opinion.

In what a Florida legal website, Legal Examiner, called “this rare display of discord” on the usually placid Nevada Supreme Court, the justices ruled 4-3 that the mother was not within the jurisdiction of the state's courts, and the case was dismissed.

Justice Mark Gibbons wrote a dissent from the majority ruling and was supported by Justices Nancy Saitta and Michael Cherry.

On the Legal Examiner site, Reno attorney Steven J. Klearman wrote, “Unlike their brethren on the U.S. Supreme Court, the Nevada Supreme Court rarely produces close split decisions. … The holding in this case has tremendous consequences for Nevada residents injured in accidents involving vehicles owned by residents of other states. Given Nevada's tourist economy, small size, and proximity to California, we have an unusually high proportion of out of state vehicles traveling on our roadways.”

The court opinions can be read at http://supreme.nvcourts.gov/

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take a case from Nevada on the constitutionality of Nevada's “None of these candidates” (NOTC) ballot option. Interest in the court (in)action was widespread, even covered on Lenta.ru in Russia.

The ballot line, which applies only to statewide races, was challenged in court in 2012 by supporters of Mitt Romney and Dean Heller. U.S. Nevada District Court Judge Robert Jones granted an injunction taking NOTC off the ballot, but that action was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in time for the 2012 election. Then in July 2013, the Ninth Circuit threw the lawsuit out, upholding NOTC.

The Supreme Court action has the effect of leaving the Ninth Circuit ruling standing, so some political reporters took that to mean NOTC has been validated, as when the Washington Post reported that “after the Supreme Court's decision Monday, it looks like it's here to stay.” (The Post also included in its story a clip of Richard Pryor in the movie Brewster's Millions to try to explain NOTC. Not making this up.) But the court's refusal to accept the case does not indicate anything about the merits of the case. The court declines to accept cases for all kinds of reasons. It may not consider a dispute ripe for hearing, or the issues raised important enough, or because the law is already settled, or a number of other reasons.

So far, no federal appeals court has ruled on the merits of NOTC. The Ninth Circuit ruling was on technical grounds, that those bringing the lawsuit had no standing and had engaged in improper tactics.

On the same day the court refused the NOTC case, it also declined to hear an Arizona abortion case.

NOTC is a protest device. It has no effect on election outcomes.