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 . . .”
How later courts described this case
- 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
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Maupin, J.,
concurs:
In retrospect, I agree with Justice Parraguirre that we should not refer defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada for possible discipline.