5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Sunrise Hosp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 07, 2024)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by compelling testimony concerning alleged privileged information under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA). The Court answered this question by considering: (1) whether the PSQIA patient safety work product privilege can be waived and (2) whether the information that Grace seeks to discover constitutes privileged patient safety work product. The Court looked at the plain language of the regulation and found that the regulation describes when patient safety work product shall continue to remain privileged. The regulation does not describe when patient safety work product shall be excepted from privilege–the exceptions are covered in a different section. The district court erred when it found that Sunrise could waive the privilege over patient safety work product under the PSQIA.
The Court ultimately rejected the district court’s interpretation and found that the privilege over identifiable patient safety work product is absolute and cannot be waived. The district court was further ordered to vacate its order to compel testimony of Dr. Murawsky and to determine whether Grace seeks to compel identifiable or nonidentifiable patient safety work product, and then rule on the motion to compel accordingly
Let the Sun Shine: Methods for Expansion of Small-Scale Solar Electricity toReduce Fossil Fuel Dependence, Ease Financial Energy Burdens, andEnhance Community Resiliency
Get PDFBourne v. Valdes, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Nov. 27, 2024)
Get PDFNevada’s professional negligence statute—NRS 41A—is the governing law for malpractice cases where a patient dies by suicide. Nevada has no suicide rule that alleviates a medical provider from liability if a patient dies of suicide outside of the provider’s control and custody. Instead, the court must make factual findings to determine ordinary medical malpractice elements for a suicide case, including Duty, Breach, Foreseeability, and Proximate Causation. If a provider’s actions could foreseeably lead a patient to commit suicide, they can be held liable
The Macau SAR Regulation of Casino Gaming: Structural Features After the Reforms of 2022–2024
Get PDFCannabis and the Regulate-Like Gaming Experiment: Are Nevada’s Gaming Policies and Regulations Portable to Cannabis
Get PDF
A Life in Service: Interview with the Hon. Christopher M. Klein
Get PDFOver the course of a few days, Judge Christopher M. Klein agreed to sit down, figuratively speaking, with Professor Nancy Rapoport and answer a few questions about how he approaches his job as a bankruptcy judge.
By way of background, Judge Klein was appointed to the bench in 1998 as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of California. He was a member of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit from 1998 through August 2008, serving as Chief Judge from 2007 to 2008. Prior to 1988, after service in the Marine Corps as an artillery officer in Vietnam and judge advocate, Judge Klein was a trial attorney in the United States Department of Justice; in private practice with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton; and deputy general counsel-litigation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
During his time on the bankruptcy bench, Judge Klein has presided over thousands of bankruptcy cases—both individual and business—and interacted with countless debtors, creditors, and professionals. He also was a member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence; he has spoken on many panels and participated in likely as many roundtables; and he has written articles on bankruptcy law and practice. His vast experience, including his time as a nonbankruptcy attorney and in public and private practice, offers unique insights and food for thought for the bankruptcy community
The New Yellow Dog Contract: Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Collective Action Waivers in the Aftermath of Epic Systems
Get PDFSince the 1980s, the Supreme Court has consistently found arbitration agreements in employment contracts to be enforceable, citing a strong national policy favoring arbitration. This line of cases came to its apogee in 2018 with Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. The Court held that the statutory right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection did not confer upon employees the right to bring class actions against their employer when they had signed an arbitration agreement with a collective action waiver. While the Court’s decision was widely criticized in the academic community, it sent a clear message to employers: you can stay out of court simply by having employees sign an arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreements and class action waivers call to mind the yellow dog contracts of the early twentieth century, which prohibited employees from joining a union as a condition of employment. Both arbitration clauses and yellow dog contracts significantly restrict an employee’s bargaining power against his employer and run contrary to the free labor economy envisioned by the drafters of the Thirteenth Amendment. The current Court is unlikely to find that arbitration agreements and class action waivers create a system of involuntary servitude, but there are other measures state and local governments can take to help workers vindicate their statutory rights. For example, states and cities could pass laws similar to California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes employees to sue on behalf of the state for labor-code violations committed against them and other employees. Whatever solutions are implemented, they must ensure that they combat the modern-day yellow dog contract and help bring the Thirteenth Amendment’s vision of free labor closer to fruition
Draskovich v. Draskovich, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. (Mar. 21, 2024)
Get PDFIn this divorce case, the Court addressed the characterization of the Draskovich Law Group (DLG) and the issue of alimony, establishing legal principles for determining the status of businesses incorporated during a marriage. The Court ruled that a business established by one spouse prior to the marriage and incorporated under a different name during the marriage retains its character as the separate property of that spouse, despite incorporation. The incorporation of DLG did not alter its essential nature as a continuation of Robert Draskovich’s pre-marriage legal practice, thus not invoking the presumption of community property. However, the Court also recognized the potential for a community property interest in the business’ value increase during the marriage, requiring clear and convincing evidence from the non-owning spouse to establish such interest. Further, the Court vacated the trial court’s ruling on alimony, necessitating reconsideration due to the altered circumstances surrounding the characterization of DLG