Court Opinion

ID: 8045754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 03:56:17.052956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:28.864526
License: Public Domain

Maupin, J.,
dissenting:
I join Justice Rose in his dissent. I write separately to address a comment made by the Chief Justice in her separate concurrence with the majority. The concurrence concludes that the framers of the Nevada Constitution did not intend to grant jury trials in small *886claims cases. That is so. The Legislature did not create the small claims division of justice courts until over one-half century following statehood. The framers must be forgiven for such a lack of prescience. But, as stated in Aftercare of Clark County v. Justice Court,1 the framers clearly intended to hold the right to jury trial inviolate in justice court matters involving claims for money damages. And because small claims actions are justice court actions, tried by justices of the peace, such actions are subject to this constitutional right. Yes, small claims court did not exist at statehood. The subsequent creation of small claims courts as a division of justice courts cannot circumvent the Constitution.
Only the people of this state may change the Nevada Constitution. The majority today has usurped this critical prerogative.

 120 Nev. 1, 8, 82 P.3d 931, 935 (2004).