5322 research outputs found
Sort by
TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp., 138 Nev. Op. 21 (Mar. 31, 2022)
Get PDFEven if a district court has already denied a movant’s preliminary injunction, the movant must still seek stay or injunctive relief pending appeal in the district court. The movant can only waive this requirement by demonstrating that asking the district court for relief first is truly impracticable
A Historic Westside Story: Las Vegas Black History, Gaming Policy Effects on Black Employment, and Gaming Companies Leaving Money on the Table
Get PDFNev. Pol’y Rsch. Inst., Inc., v. Cannizzaro. 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (Apr. 21, 2022)
Get PDFThe Court held that it may apply the public-importance exception in cases where a party seeks to protect the essential nature of “a government in which the three distinct departments…legislative, executive, and judicial remain within the bounds of their constitutional powers.” In Nevada Policy Research Institute, Inc. v Cannizzaro, the Court determines proper standing and evaluates the public-importance exception laid out in Schwartz
Education Freedom PAC v. Reid, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (June 28, 2022)
Get PDFThis appeal comes from a district court order enjoining an initiative petition’s circulation and the initiative’s placement on the ballot. In an opinion drafted by Justice Hardesty, the Court considered whether the district court properly denied EFP’s request to dismiss the complaint because the district court had not set the matter for a hearing within 15 days. The Court acknowledges that, under the Nevada Constitution, an initiative petition cannot require appropriations or expenditures, must adequately inform potential signatories about the petition’s goal, and cannot invade the Legislature’s primary role of proposing and enacting laws. The Court concluded that that the initiative at hand failed to satisfy all three requirements and that the district court properly enjoined respondent Secretary of State from placing the initiative on the ballot and properly declined to dismiss the complaint despite not having set the hearing within that time frame
Modeling the Caselaw Access Project: Lessons for Market Power and the Antitrust–Regulation Balance
Get PDFFederal National Mortgage Ass\u27n v. Westland Liberty Village, LLC, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug 11, 2022)
Get PDFFederal National Mortgage Association v. Westland Liberty Village, LLC required the Nevada Supreme Court to clarify when a lender or its assignee is entitled to the appointment of a receiver after a borrower defaults on a real property loan agreement. In doing so, the Court interpreted two Nevada Statutes, NRS 32.260 and NRS 107A.260(1)(a)(1).2 Together, these statues provide when the appointment of a receiver is based on the discretion of the court or is a matter of right. Here, The Nevada Supreme Court held that the borrower, Westland Liberty Village (Westland) defaulted on their loan agreement with National Mortgage Association (National Mortgage), and pursuant to NRS 32.260(2)(b) and NRS 107A.260(1)(a)(1)3 , National Mortgage was entitled to appointment of a receiver. The Court reversed the case and remanded it back for further proceedings
Martel v. HG Staffing, LLC, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sept. 08, 2022)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal and judgment against claims made by a class of employees against their previous employer, HG Staffing, LLC. The Court made four major findings. First, the two-year limitations period applies to wage claims arising under NRS 608.016, NRS 608.018, NRS 680.020, and NRS 680.050. Second, a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) need not be signed by the parties or unexpired; mutual assent is enough to validate the agreement. Third, if claims for wages are already time barred, employees cannot try to penalize the employer under NRS 608.040. Finally, if an active CBA contains a provision addressing overtime pay, employees cannot enjoy the overtime benefits provided for waged employees in the Nevada Revised Statutes
Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Inc. v. The Eighth Judicial District Court, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 18, 2022)
Get PDFIn order to intervene as a necessary third party, the motion to intervene must be filed before a final judgement has been entered that resolves the case. Additionally, even though the Las Vegas Police Protective Association attempted to intervene too late, the Court considered whether they were a necessary party at all. The Court concluded that they were not a necessary party because their absence would not impair or impede any of their interests
Nev. Gaming Comm’n v. Wynn, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 31, 2022)
Get PDFThe Court examined whether NRS 463.318(2), which states that judicial review is the exclusive method of review for Nevada Gaming Commission (“Commission”) actions, precluded Stephen Wynn’s writ of prohibition that argued the Commission and Nevada Gaming Control Board (“Board”) lacked jurisdiction over Wynn in his disciplinary proceeding. The Court also considered whether an order by the Commission denying Wynn’s motion to dismiss was “final” under NRS 463.315(1), which entitles a person subject to the Commission’s disciplinary proceedings to judicial review of the Commission’s final order. Pursuant to NRS 463.318(2), the Court found the district court lacked jurisdiction to review Wynn’s petition. The Court also found the district court further lacked jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 463.315(1) because the Commission’s denial of Wynn’s motion to dismiss was not “final.
