5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Yafchak v. S. Las Vegas Med. Inv’rs., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Oct. 27, 2022)
Get PDFProfessional negligence complaints are distinct from elder abuse complaints, with only the former requiring an affidavit of merit attached to the complaint. Where the type of complaint is unclear in regard to professional negligence and elder abuse, courts must look to the substance of the complaint to determine the scope and assess whether attachment of an affidavit of merit is statutorily required
Laboratories of Democracy: State Law as a Partial Solution to Workplace Harassment
Get PDFThis Article analyzes the substantive and procedural problems created by the federal judiciary in Title VII hostile work environment law that concurrently drains federal anti-harassment law of its meaning. The premise is that, at least for the near future, relying on federal courts and/or the U.S. Congress to protect employees\u27 civil rights is likely fruitless. Instead, we should encourage state legislatures that seek to improve civil rights in employment in their own jurisdictions and state supreme courts to interpret their own state laws to recognize employees\u27 civil rights to the fullest extent possible. Part II analyzes how federal courts decide cases under Title VII. It focuses on how procedural injustice, combined with the courts\u27 creation of substantive doctrines that help them dispose of cases earlier in the litigation process, deprives the most vulnerable workers of their civil rights. Finally, Part III discusses how states can protect workers\u27 rights to be free of race- and sex-based harassment by enacting more protective legislation, refusing to adopt federal procedures, and limiting doctrines when courts interpret their own state laws
Sports Betting Blitz: Advertising Inundation in the U.S. Market Post-PASPA and Steps Operators Can Take to Avoid Further Regulation and Legislation
Get PDFPorchia v. City of Las Vegas, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (Feb. 17, 2022)
Get PDFIn an opinion drafted by Justice Herndon, the Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellant Larry Porchia’s complaint in its entirety. Porchia alleged that he was denied medical treatment and transportation by the EMTs after they negligently misdiagnosed him because he was experiencing homelessness and was uninsured. The district court dismissed his complaint with the rationale that the claims were barred by the public duty doctrine and the Good Samaritan statute. However, the Court reasoned that accepting Porchia’s allegations as true, the EMT’s failure to provide medical assistance or transportation to the hospital based on the appellant’s socioeconomic status may be gross negligence and an affirmative act exempted from the public duty doctrine. Thus, the Good Samaritan statute would be inapplicable. The Court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint in its entirety
