5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Nelson v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Dec. 22, 2022)
Get PDFA law firm is not automatically disqualified based on a paralegal’s imputed conflict of interest unless there is actual disclosure of confidences or ineffective screening measures. Additionally, district courts have broad discretion in determining whether a law firm must be disqualified, and whether to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine adequacy of screening measures
Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc., v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Mar. 30, 2023)
Get PDFPertaining to the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA), NRS 49.335 does not justify withholding public records in their entirety simply because some portion of the record identifies an individual. Under the generalized balancing test, to determine whether disclosure of public records is appropriate, the government entity bears the burden of proving that its nondisclosure interests clearly outweigh the public’s interest. Further, under the Clark County School District’s (CCSD’s) burden-shifting balancing test, speculative harm to nontrivial personal privacy interests is insufficient to shift the burden from the governmental entity to the plaintiff
Pandémie et travail de plateforme: réglementation du « lieu de travail » après le Covid-19 aux USA [The Gig and The Platform: Regulating the “Workplace” After the Pandemic]
No full textStarr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Sep. 14, 2023)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court analyzed whether Starr’s commercial property insurance policy covered AGB’s economic losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court ruled that it did not. A commercial property insurance policy does not cover economic losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic because the COVID-19 virus does not have the requisite direct and physical impact on property that the insurance policy covers. Additionally, Starr’s commercial property insurance policy specifically defined virus in their policy exclusion therefore excluding damages resulting from COVID-19 from being covered
Killebrew v. Donohue [State of Nevada], 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Sept. 28, 2023)
Get PDFLegislative action in 2017 allowed the State Land Registrar (Registrar) to increase usage fees for piers and buoys in Nevada waters to reflect fair market prices and fees in comparable areas. Subsequently, the Registrar issued regulation NAC 322.190, which increased the rates by 1400%. This administrative action was challenged by Lake Tahoe property owners under NRS 233B.110 as invalid for being outside of the scope of statutory authority allotted to the Registrar. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Registrar holding that because the regulation did not violate any constitutional or statutory authority given to Registrar, it was valid. In affirming the decision, the Nevada Supreme Court also clarified that arbitrary and capricious review does not apply when assessing the validity of a regulation
STOP THE COUNT; The Historically Discriminatory Nature of the Bar Exam Requires Adjustments in How Bar Passage Rates are Reported, If at All
Get PDFDespite its ugly history and persistent disparate impact on racial and minority groups, the Bar Exam is still a required step for (nearly) every jurisdiction in a law school graduate’s quest to become an attorney. Deficiencies abound in the exam’s inability to effectively evaluate the minimum competency of what newly minted attorneys should possess. It is left to the local jurisdiction to collect, analyze, and determine what mode to release and calculate results. There has been a recent shift in focus, and change of scope, in the American Bar Association Ultimate Bar Passage, Standard 316. Nevertheless, the local authorities provide pass rate data via public reports that are often not in line, or are even in definitional conflict, with the ABA standard.
A lack of standardized public disclosure for statistics on bar results has exacerbated inequities. The meteoric rise of the Uniform Bar Exam and its widespread adoption is impacting how results are compiled and reported. Solutions are straightforward, if not simple, to implement. Reporting agencies must assess and update their individualized calculation and publication methods to ensure accuracy and conformity to set standards. The American Bar Association must update its questionnaire and, at the very least, clarify its definition of first-time takers. Finally, the National Conference of Bar Examiners must proactively assist and provide data to law schools on examinees who transfer Uniform Bar Exam scores between jurisdictions, particularly within the first two years of graduation
Washoe Cty. Human Servs. v. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Dec. 29, 2022)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court considered this writ of mandamus as it held substantial precedential value and was a matter of first impression. Although the controversy was moot, they decided to hear the issue, as the duration of the challenges action is relatively short and a similar issue is likely to arise in the future. Further, the Court found the matter to be important, because the issue related to the protection of Nevada children. The Court held that NRS 432B.393(3)(c) is constitutional, as it does not infringe on the due process rights of parents concerning the altering or termination of custody rights
Las Vegas Rev. J. v. Clark Cty. Ofc. of the Coroner/Med. Exam’r., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Dec. 15, 2022)
Get PDFA District Court Judge must adequately explain a reduction of an appropriately granted award of attorney’s fees under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA).2 The explanation must consider the four Brunzell factors: (1) quality of the advocate; (2) the character of the work needed to be done; (3) the work performed; and (4) the result.3 Generally, the greater the amount of the reduction, the more thorough an explanation must be
Freeman Expositions, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Dec. 01, 2022)
Get PDFThe Nevada Legislature has clearly distinguished between recreational and medical cannabis use in the employment context. Under NRS 678C.850(3), employees have a private right of action when an employer does not provide reasonable accommodations for the use of medical cannabis off-site and outside of working hours. While employees have a private right of action under NRS 678C.850, they lack a cause of action in such circumstances for tortious discharge or negligent hiring, training, or supervision. Furthermore, pursuant to Ceballos v. NP Palace, LLC, employees who use medical cannabis may not bring a claim against their employer under NRS 613.333