Estate of Dyer v. Guernier

Nevada Supreme Court

Estate of Dyer v. Guernier

DecidedFebruary 19, 2015

Docket62941

StatusUnpublished

This text of Estate of Dyer v. Guernier (Estate of Dyer v. Guernier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Dyer v. Guernier, (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

v. Airmotive & Villanova, Inc., 109 Nev. 314, 318, 849 P.2d 277, 279 (1993) (holding that "juror affidavits [are] inadmissible to show that the jurors misunderstood the judge's instructions") (internal quotations omitted). Instead of relating objective facts, paragraphs 4, 6, and 7 delved into the prohibited realm of the jury's mental processes, and understanding of the judge's instructions. Consequently, we conclude that although paragraph 5 establishes that juror misconduct occurred, it is not sufficient to establish that the misconduct was prejudicial. See Meyer, 119 Nev. at 563-64, 80 P.3d at 455 (explaining that in order to prevail on a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, admissible evidence must establish "a) the occurrence of juror misconduct, and (2) a showing that the misconduct was prejudicial"). Knowledge that a juror used Google to look up "mitigation of damages" on his phone without any more details, like whether the definition found was even inaccurate, is insufficient to establish prejudice under Meyer. 119 Nev. at 564, 80 P.3d at 455 ("Prejudice is shown whenever there is a reasonable probability or likelihood that the juror misconduct affected the verdict."). Therefore, we reverse the district court's grant of a new trial. We also order the district court to reconsider the merits of Respondents' motion for additur. 1 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

'We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Liga-d-tn Hardesty

bp.401

Parraguirre

Douglas

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Settlement Judge Barron & Pruitt, LLP Richard Harris Law Firm Marquis Aurbach Coffing Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947.4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

v. Airmotive & Villanova, Inc., 109 Nev. 314, 318, 849 P.2d 277, 279 (1993) (holding that "juror affidavits [are] inadmissible to show that the jurors misunderstood the judge's instructions") (internal quotations omitted). Instead of relating objective facts, paragraphs 4, 6, and 7 delved into the prohibited realm of the jury's mental processes, and understanding of the judge's instructions. Consequently, we conclude that although paragraph 5 establishes that juror misconduct occurred, it is not sufficient to establish that the misconduct was prejudicial. See Meyer, 119 Nev. at 563-64, 80 P.3d at 455 (explaining that in order to prevail on a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, admissible evidence must establish "a) the occurrence of juror misconduct, and (2) a showing that the misconduct was prejudicial"). Knowledge that a juror used Google to look up "mitigation of damages" on his phone without any more details, like whether the definition found was even inaccurate, is insufficient to establish prejudice under Meyer. 119 Nev. at 564, 80 P.3d at 455 ("Prejudice is shown whenever there is a reasonable probability or likelihood that the juror misconduct affected the verdict."). Therefore, we reverse the district court's grant of a new trial. We also order the district court to reconsider the merits of Respondents' motion for additur. 1 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.