Before the Court en banc (Justice Pickering recused). Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this decision, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed whether a party can supplement the factual record when a question is certified to the Nevada Supreme Court by a federal court. In the appeal, respondents filed a supplemental appendix to refute the facts the certifying court provided to the Court. The Court concluded that its role under a certification pursuant to NRAP 5, as the answering court, is simply to resolve the questions of law posed to it by the certifying court. In satisfying its obligation, the Court adopted the majority view that the answering court must accept the facts as provided by the certifying court and limit its analysis to applying the law to those facts. Therefore, while the Court may consider an appendix to get a better understanding of the underlying case, it will not examine supplemental materials for the purpose of contradicting the facts from the certifying court. Accordingly, the Court granted appellant’s motion to strike respondents’ supplemental appendix. (Seth T. Floyd, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson).
