# Lioce v. Cohen

> Nevada Supreme Court · January 17, 2008 · 124 Nev. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782238

## Case

- **Full name:** GREGORY J. LIOCE, Appellant, v. DANA S. COHEN; MORRY COHEN; And JOHN C. WILSON, Respondents; TIFFANY LANG, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of ALICIA P. LANG, a Minor; And JOSEPH LANG, Individually, Appellants, v. JENNIFER KNIPPENBERG, Respondent; LUIS CASTRO, Appellant, v. VANESSA CABRERA; And SYLVIA CABRERA, as the Natural Parent and Legal Guardian of GABRIEL CABRERA, a Minor, and NICHOLAS CABRERA, a Minor, Respondents; JAMES SEASHOLTZ, Appellant, v. LINDSAY WHEELER, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 17, 2008
- **Citations:** 124 Nev. 1; 124 Nev. Adv. Rep. 1; 174 P.3d 970; 2008 Nev. LEXIS 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Parraguirre
- **Judges:** Cherry, Douglas, Gibbons, Hardesty, Maupin, Parraguirre
- **Cited by:** 100 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782238

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “sanctions for professional misconduct at trial in civil cases are best considered in the first instance by the district court. Therefore, the district court may, on a party’s motion or sua sponte, impose sanctions for professional misconduct at trial . . .”
- explaining that it is impermissible for an attorney to make a so-called golden rule argument by asking the jurors to place themselves in plaintiff’s position or to nullify the jury’s role by asking it to instead “send a message” to the defendant
- holding that unobjected-to attorney misconduct warrants a new trial only when "no other reasonable explanation for the verdict exists'
- recognizing that this court may review unobjected-to attorney misconduct for plain error on appeal relating to a motion for new trial
- holding that a "party rnust object to OF NEVADA 101 1947A 11 purportedly improper argument to preserve this issue for appear and explaining that the issue is "generally deem [ecll" waived if the party fails to object to it

## Opinion text

Parraguirre, J., with whom Maupin, J., agrees,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusions relating to attorney misconduct jurisprudence. I also concur with my colleagues’ decision to decline the imposition of monetary sanctions. I disagree, however, with the majority’s decision to refer defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada.
As stated in my previous partial dissent, the district court has the benefit of evaluating all conduct during the course of trial and is in a superior position to determine and impose appropriate penalties for attorney misconduct occurring at trial. Absent a finding of appellate abuse in this case, I would decline to refer defense counsel to the state bar.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782238. Public record. Not legal advice.