Both a procedural and substantive question were presented in this appeal. The procedural question asked whether a party must move for a new trial in district court to preserve attorney misconduct claims on appeal. The Court recently held that a party is not necessarily required to move for a new trial to preserve its trial error-based arguments or ability to seek a new trial as an appellate remedy.
Respondents argue that the Court’s decision in Lioce v. Cohen requires a party to move for a new trial to preserve a specific claim that attorney misconduct warrants a new trial. 3 The Court determined that Respondents read too much into Lioce and ignored the procedural nature of that case. The Respondents were only concerned with whether the complaining parties preserved their attorney misconduct arguments with contemporaneous objections.
Long, Anne-Greyson, "Evans-Waiau vs. Tate 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 16, 2022)" (2022). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1519.