Bruce Rutherford Thompson

This case involved a church and its pastor seeking permission to use a public high school facility for Sunday worship services during non-school hours after the Washoe County School District denied their application under a policy barring religious uses. The plaintiffs argued that the denial amounted to unconstitutional content-based discrimination against protected speech in a limited open forum created by the district's community use regulations, while the district contended that allowing the use would violate the Establishment Clause and related state laws. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the policy unconstitutional as applied and ordering that the facilities be made available to the church on the same basis as other groups. The core reasoning was that religious worship and discussion constitute protected speech, and once a school district opens its facilities to community expressive activities, it cannot selectively exclude religious content without satisfying strict scrutiny, which was not met here.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

The case involved a dispute between U.S. plaintiffs who operated a sole proprietorship distributing astronomical materials and a foreign defendant corporation over an alleged breach of a distribution agreement through sales to third parties, along with related claims of fraud, breach of implied covenant, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3). The decision rested on a forum selection clause in the agreement stating that it was subject to English law and that English courts had competent jurisdiction, which was reaffirmed in a later extension letter signed by the plaintiffs. Drawing on Supreme Court precedent for international commercial contracts, the court enforced the clause as the parties had freely negotiated it without evidence of fraud, overreaching, or other factors rendering enforcement unreasonable.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1989 collision between a Southern Pacific train and a Maga Trucking tractor-trailer stranded at a Nevada railroad crossing, with each side suing the other for negligence-related damages to equipment and freight. Southern Pacific moved for summary judgment, contending that the Federal Railroad Safety Act and Federal Aid Highway Act preempted any state common-law negligence claims concerning railroad crossing maintenance. The court denied the motion, reasoning that federal preemption is limited to displacing specific state statutes or regulations in areas covered by federal rules and does not bar traditional negligence actions, leaving factual questions about the crossing's condition and causation for trial.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs suing moving companies O’Brien’s Moving and Storage Inc. and Bekins Van Lines Company for damage to a 1931 Estey Baby Grand piano that occurred while in their custody during transport from California to Nevada. The court decided that the defendants were liable for the full value of the piano, awarding $6,419.87 to the plaintiffs, and additionally imposed $10,000 in punitive damages against Bekins for bad faith in handling the claim. The reasoning was that under the Carmack Amendment governing interstate carriers, the defendants as bailees were responsible for any damage during the period of custody without need to prove a specific incident, as the piano was delivered in worse condition than received, and federal common law permitted punitive damages for intentional bad faith refusal to settle a valid claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved a dispute between Crystal Bay General Improvement District and its insurer Aetna Casualty over coverage under a comprehensive general liability policy for third-party claims of nuisance, trespass, and emotional distress arising from septic odors from a pump station. CBGID sued Aetna alleging bad faith, unfair insurance practices, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking declaratory relief that the policy covered the losses and barred Aetna from recovering the $96,000 it paid to settle the underlying suit; Aetna counterclaimed for reimbursement. The court denied all motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, determining that material factual and legal issues remained unresolved concerning policy interpretation, the pollution exclusion, the duty to defend and settle, and whether Aetna gave equal consideration to CBGID's interests in the absence of policy limits.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff's claim of employment discrimination based on pregnancy under Title VII against her former employer. The plaintiff partially prevailed at trial, obtaining back pay for two specific discriminatory acts but failing on broader claims and other causes of action. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) but awarded only $24,800 rather than the requested amount exceeding $200,000 with enhancement. The reasoning focused on calculating a lodestar amount based on reasonable hours and rates for the degree of success achieved, without applying a contingency enhancement multiplier because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that such an enhancement was necessary to attract competent counsel in the relevant market.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Jan Cordova, a cleaning specialist at Harrah's Reno Hotel-Casino, who was terminated after failing to turn in a found gaming chip according to company policy, leading to claims of gender-based discrimination under Title VII, bad faith discharge, and emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no evidence of discriminatory motive or bad faith in the termination, which was based on the plaintiff's violation of the found money policy despite her claims of misunderstanding and impending retirement benefit vesting. The reasoning centered on the absence of any nexus between the discharge and protected characteristics or policies, with the employer's decision supported by the supervisor's account and company procedures.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a claim by Toni Recanzone that the Washoe County School District and its officials discriminated against her in employment based solely on her physical handicaps, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff, who had significant physical disabilities but was qualified as a special education teacher, received only temporary contracts and was assigned the most challenging class despite her experience, while others without handicaps received permanent positions. The court found that the defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for her known disabilities and inferred discrimination from the circumstances, including the assignment of duties that provided no intellectual fulfillment. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for reeducation expenses and emotional distress totaling $74,954.17.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerned whether Rockwood Insurance had a duty to defend or indemnify its policyholders—Federated Capital Corp., Michael Thomas, and Mark Anderson—against over thirty lawsuits filed by purchasers of limited partnership interests in two Nevada ranch restoration projects. The district court granted summary judgment to Rockwood on cross-motions, declaring no coverage or duty to defend existed under the policies. The policies provided only narrow coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising from designated construction work on the specific ranches during set periods, but the underlying complaints centered on securities fraud, misrepresentations in selling partnership shares, breach of fiduciary duties, and related claims not tied to covered occurrences. The court reasoned that limited partners hold only personal property interests with no claim to partnership assets, the partnerships themselves were not named insureds, and any purported assignment to a successor company was invalid under the policy terms.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved a law firm's action in Nevada state court to recover legal fees from defendant Dr. Spademan. After the initial service attempt by mail was quashed, proper service occurred on April 14, 1988, and the defendant removed the case to federal court on May 13, 1988, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The court granted the motion and remanded the action, holding that the 30-day removal period began upon the defendant's receipt of the complaint in January 1988, as the statute's language permits the clock to start through service or otherwise, and the defendant had acknowledged receiving the pleading.

procedure

This case arose after the plaintiff sued the states of California and Nevada along with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in state court, prompting the defendants to remove the action to federal court. The plaintiff successfully moved to remand on Eleventh Amendment grounds, as the federal court lacked jurisdiction over damage claims against the states. The plaintiff then sought over $129,000 in attorney's fees and costs, arguing the removal was improper. The court denied the motion, finding that the removal petition had been filed in good faith based on arguable interpretations of removal statutes and precedent such as Stephens v. State of Nevada, with no basis for sanctions under Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved a female employee who rose through various accounting roles in the Carson City School District from 1972 to 1984, retiring as Coordinator of Business and Finance at a salary of $22,996; she sued under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a male successor was hired at $34,000, alleging sex discrimination in compensation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. It reasoned that the salary differential resulted from a factor other than sex—specifically, market demand for the position, as the plaintiff herself had recommended budgeting around $32,000 to attract a qualified replacement—and that the record contained no evidence of a discriminatory motive. The position was unique with no directly comparable roles, and the plaintiff had participated in the job description, salary range setting, and hiring process that selected the male candidate.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over a 10% net profits interest reserved by Candelaria Industries when it sold Nevada mining claims in 1970, later partially assigned to International Development Fund; after the property reached commercial production under defendants including Occidental Petroleum subsidiaries, plaintiffs sued claiming entitlement to a share of $120 million in profits from the defendants' silver and gold futures trading, alleging breach of contract and fiduciary duty. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability under three theories. Applying Nevada substantive law in this diversity action, the court interpreted the unambiguous purchase agreement according to its terms and the parties' intent, focusing on the definitions of net profits and deductible costs tied to mining operations and mineral sales rather than separate commodities trading. The court noted that affidavits confirmed the original parties had not contemplated futures trading when drafting the agreement. The action later settled after a jury verdict, leading to vacatur of the judgment and dismissal with prejudice.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Piazza v. Carson City, a defendant filed a motion to disbar two attorneys representing the plaintiffs in a civil rights action, alleging professional misconduct such as suborning false affidavits and failing to disclose a partial settlement to clients. The motion invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and several local rules of the U.S. District Court for Nevada. The court denied the motion without prejudice to any state proceedings. It reasoned that the local rules provide no machinery for initiating disbarment in federal court except after state discipline has occurred, that Rule 11 sanctions do not include disbarment, and that litigating the charges in this collateral proceeding would disrupt the underlying case and risk infringing the parties' jury trial rights on credibility issues.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved the Libertarian Party of Nevada seeking ballot access for the 1986 elections under state laws requiring third parties to file petitions signed by 5% of voters from the prior congressional election, with a deadline 90 days before the primary plus signature verification procedures. The court held that NRS 293.128 was unconstitutional as applied to the party because the 90-day filing deadline was too remote from the election and imposed an unjustified burden on rights of political association and effective voting. The reasoning centered on the lack of a compelling need for the extra time allotted for verification, as state officials testified that 60-65 days would suffice, and the deadline combined with other requirements impaired minority party access without adequate justification. The court therefore enjoined Nevada officials from denying the Libertarian Party ballot access for 1986 while limiting the ruling to that party only.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

William and Julia Baxter sued the United States for a refund of federal income taxes for 1978-1981, claiming that William Baxter's professional poker gambling income qualified for favorable tax treatment as personal service income from a trade or business. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Baxters. It held that Baxter's gambling activities constituted a trade or business under the facts and circumstances test, as he devoted substantial time to it, relied on his exceptional skills, and had no other occupation. The court further determined that capital was not a material income-producing factor in his income, serving only as a tool of the trade.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), established by a congressionally ratified interstate compact to manage development in the Lake Tahoe basin, and whether TRPA could hold closed meetings with its attorney under the compact's open-meeting provision. That provision requires TRPA to follow the stricter of California or Nevada's open-meeting laws for local governments. After comparing the two statutes' exceptions and requirements, the court held that Nevada's law imposes greater obligations because it mandates minutes of closed sessions that become public records once confidentiality ends, unlike California's rules. The court therefore granted summary judgment to TRPA, ruling that Nevada law applies and permits closed attorney-client conferences if the meeting is properly noticed from an open session and minutes are kept and later disclosed when appropriate.

environmentprocedurefederal power

In Locke v. United States, owners of unpatented mining claims on federal land in Nevada challenged the Bureau of Land Management's declaration that their claims were abandoned and void because they filed annual assessment notices one day after the December 30 deadline under 43 U.S.C. § 1744. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the statute's irrebuttable presumption of abandonment violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by depriving them of a protected property interest without an opportunity to show lack of intent to abandon. The court also ruled that the Lockes had substantially complied with the filing requirement, consistent with Supreme Court precedents like Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp. and related regulations under the General Mining Law that treat substantial compliance as sufficient to avoid forfeiture. The opinion emphasized that unpatented mining claims constitute a possessory property interest entitled to constitutional protection.

propertyprocedurefederal power

Ellis Ferguson sued BLM officials and the United States in Nevada federal court, alleging improper rejection of his oil and gas lease applications for Wyoming public lands and seeking declaratory relief, inclusion in a reselection process, and an injunction against issuing leases to others. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue and failure to join parties. The court held that the suit involves real property under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3) because its purpose is to secure an interest in the Wyoming lands, making venue proper only in the district where the property is situated rather than where the plaintiff resides. The court therefore transferred the case to the District of Wyoming instead of dismissing it.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a Mexican citizen detained by Humboldt County officials for over a year as a material witness in a first-degree murder prosecution under Nevada law, who sued state and county officials under federal civil rights statutes for unlawful confinement without prompt judicial review, abuse during detention, and denial of witness fees. After settlement with the county defendants, the court addressed claims against the state defendants from the attorney general's office. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that the magistrate's commitment order was an intervening cause breaking any chain of proximate causation from the state officials' actions, that the attorney general lacks direct supervisory responsibility over local prosecutions under Nevada statutes, and that the state defendants were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. The initial six-day delay before the magistrate was deemed unlawful, but later detention was not attributable to the remaining defendants.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure