5322 research outputs found
Sort by
In re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022)
Get PDFFor the District Court of Nevada to have specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trustee, they must meet the Calder effects test to show that the defendant purposefully directed his actions towards Nevada. Mere actions towards a plaintiff living in Nevada will not amount to sufficient contacts in Nevada. Margaret must show Steven expressly aimed his actions at Nevada. Margaret failed to bring prima facie evidence of the effects in Nevada. Therefore, Nevada does not have specific personal jurisdiction over Steven
Jorrin v. State, Emp\u27t Sec. Div., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Sep. 07, 2023)
Get PDFUnder NRS 612.530(1), parties have 11 days after the NESD Board of Review\u27s decision is finalized to request judicial review. NRCP 6(d) provides a three-day extension for parties to act after they are served by mail. While the Court once interpreted NRCP 6(d) to extend NRS 612.530(1)’s deadline2, the Court found that the statute’s clear language does not allow for an extension because it focuses on the date the decision is finalized, not the decision’s service date. The Supreme Court of Nevada thus held that NRCP 6(d)\u27s three-day mailing rule does not influence the timeframe set by NRS 612.530(1)
Rosa Olvera v. Wynn Las Vegas; and Sedgwick CMS, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (Sept. 28, 2023)
Get PDFNRS 616C.390 allows for workers’ compensation claims to be reopened if there is a change of circumstance related to the injury that the claimant can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence. This Opinion clarifies that, if there were multiple body parts implicated in the injury, then a claim needs to be reopened only for the body parts that the claimant has demonstrated a change in circumstances
Zane Michael Floyd v. The State of Nevada Department of Corrections; and James Dzurenda, Director, Nevada Dept. of Corrections, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 28, 2023)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Floyd’s complaint which challenged the Legislature\u27s delegation of authority to the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections in NRS 176.355. The Court held that the Legislature’s delegation of authority to the Director was not unconstitutional because NRS 176.355 provides suitable standards to determine the process by which to administer a lethal injection. The Court also reasoned that NRS 176.355 must be read in context with NRS 200.030, because it authorizes the death penalty and outlines the specific crimes which the imposition of execution is the appropriate punishment. The Court further noted that, the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, in conjunction with NRS 176.355 and NRS 200.030 provide sufficient standards to guide the Director in exercising the authority delegated to him in NRS 176.355
Don\u27t Bet against Mother Nature: The Changing Climate\u27s Impact on the United States\u27 Gaming Industry
Get PDFPatents, Validity Challenges, and Private Ordering: A New Dispensation for the Easy-Challenge Era
Get PDF
Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees v. Clark County School District; Education Support Employees Association; and Clark County Education Association, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 11, 2023)
Get PDFNRS 388G.610 transfers authority from a superintendent to a local school in hiring decisions. Because the authority of a school district is subject to collective bargaining agreements, the transferred authority now held by the local school is also subject to collective bargaining agreements
Bolden v. State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (Oct. 19, 2023)
Get PDFThis case addresses whether the district court had a proper investigative inquiry before ordering the defendant, Bolden, to pay the costs for extradition restitution and psychosexual evaluation. The appeal is concerned with determining the extent to which the district court is required to make an investigative inquiry into a defendant’s ability to pay extradition restitution under NRS 179.225(2) and the psychosexual evaluation cost under NRS 176.139(7). According to the plain language of NRS 179.225(2), the district court is obligated to inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay extradition restitution. The scope of the inquiry is limited to the existing obligations specified in NRS 179.225(a)-(c) which are child support, victim restitution, or administrative assessment. There is no specified way the district court is expected to fulfill their inquiry, and the district court’s duty is considered fulfilled by asking the defendant questions on the record about any obligations within the scope that may be affected by the imposed extradition restitution. The court is then required to determine if the defendant can still meet the prior obligations along with paying extradition restitution. The plain language of NRS 176.139(7) does not require the district court to make the same investigative inquiry sua sponte before ordering a defendant to pay the cost for a psychosexual evaluation. The responsibility to object to costs based on inability to pay is with the defendant. The district court shall only impose the cost of the psychosexual evaluation to the extent the defendant is able to pay
