(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was not sufficient to determine that any unpreserved issues were “plain” error. (2) The court also determined that NRS 50.155(1) does not presently bar witnesses from communicating outside of the courtroom about topics other than witness testimony when the witness exclusion rule is in effect.
Murphy, Jocelyn, "City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Nov. 16, 2017)" (2017). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1102.