IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MICHAEL LOUIS MADDEN, No. 66822
Appellant,
vs.
CONSTANCE BRANCH,
Respondent.
FILED
JAN 1 5 2016
TRACIE K. UNDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
BY
3
U -1Qa—
1-1- yn u.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court judgment on a short
trial jury verdict in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County; Nancy L. Allf, Judge.
Appellant challenges a number of evidentiary rulings by the
short trial judge. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and appendices, we
conclude that appellant has not shown that the judge abused his
discretion regarding the challenged evidentiary rulings. See Las Vegas
Metro. Police Dep't v. Yeghiazarian, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, 312 P.3d 503,
507 (2013) (stating that a district court's decision to exclude evidence is
reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be overturned "absent a
showing of palpable abuse" (quotation omitted)).
First, the judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding
appellant's expert's accident reconstruction report and testimony on the
basis that the report and testimony did not meet the Hallmark z.).
Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008), assistance requirement as
appellant did not show that the report and testimony were the product of
reliable methodology. Id. at 500-02; 189 P.3d at 651-53. Next, the order
denying appellant's motion to exclude the testimony of respondent's
treating physicians and documents on which they relied was not an abuse
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA of discretion as appellant did not argue or show that the treating
031 1947A ce
physicians' testimony exceeded the scope of opinions the physicians
formed in the course of treating respondent. FHC1, LLC v. Rodriguez, 130
Nev., Adv. Op. 46, 335 P.3d 183, 189 (2014). We have considered
appellant's remaining arguments regarding the evidentiary rulings and
conclude that they are either without merit, are not supported by the
record, or lack the development necessary for this court to give them
meaningful consideration. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122
Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (explaining that it is
appellant's responsibility to present cogent arguments supported by
salient authority in furtherance of the appellant's position on appeal); see
also NRAP 28(e)(1) ("every assertion in briefs regarding matters in the
record shall be supported by a reference to the page and volume number, if
any, of the appendix where the matter relied on is to be found").
Appellant also argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the
basis that it was plain error for the short trial judge to allow respondent's
counsel to express his opinion regarding the jury's consideration of the
earlier arbitration award in closing arguments. Appellant has not shown
that he moved for a new trial on this basis, however, and thus appellant
has waived this issue on appeal. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev.
49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983(1981) ("A point not urged in trial court • • . is
deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal."); see
also NRAP 28(e)(1). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Janet Trost, Settlement Judge
Law Offices of Katherine M. Barker
Gabroy Law Offices
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A me