Nevada Case Laws
Click on the below to read Nevada Case Laws for the following years:
2012
2011
2010
2006
Nevada Bail Case Law 2012
In International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 2012 WL 1115049 (Nev. March 30, 2012) the surety sought a writ of mandamus to reverse the district court’s actions on three bonds written for a single defendant. The defendant had six charges. The bail agent posted three bonds (each covering two charges), and two of the bonds exceeded the maximum amount permitted by the accompanying power of attorney. The defendant failed to appear and the surety moved to exonerate the bonds because (1) the bonds violated the anti-stacking provisions of the powers by covering more than one charge and (2) two of the bonds exceeded the dollar limit of the powers. The district court denied the surety’s motion except that it reduced the forfeited amount on the two bonds to the maximum amount permitted by the powers. The Supreme Court denied the request for mandamus and stated, “Here IFIC failed to establish that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in allowing single bonds to post for multiple bail amounts. To the extent that the bond amounts exceeded the maximum amounts authorized by their accompanying powers of attorney, the district court correctly exonerated the excess of each bond, but not the entire bond.” (Nev. November 21, 2011) was a suit against a bail bond agency and its owner over return of collateral
Nevada Case Law 2011
Holmes v. Bail Bonds Unlimited, Inc., 2011 WL 5867937 (Nev. November 21, 2011) was a suit against a bail bond agency and its owner over return of collateral for the bond. The plaintiff sought relief under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the defendants were not state actors subject to liability under the constitutional provisions.
Nevada Case Law 2010
In Goodfellas Bail Bonds v. State, 2010 WL 3463385 (Nev. May 7, 2010) the trial court entered a judgment against the surety and the surety appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and repeated its holding in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. State, 126 P.3d 1133 (2006) that there is no jurisdiction to appeal “an order denying a motion to remit surety bond or any other order entered in an ancillary bail bond proceeding.” (Emphasis by the Court).
Nevada Case Law 2006
International Fidelity Insurance Co. ex rel. Blackjack Bonding, Inc. v. State, 126 P.3d 1133 (Nev. 2006) held that no statute or court rule gives the Nevada Supreme Court jurisdiction over appeals from any orders entered in an ancillary bail bond proceeding even though it had previously decided such appeals. The Court dismissed consolidated appeals from eight orders denying the surety’s motions to remit the bonds. The Court stated that the proper procedure to obtain review of such orders would be a petition for a writ of mandamus. This will limit the scope of review in future cases to correction of a manifest abuse of discretion.