Myron E. Leavitt

The case concerned the University of Nevada, Las Vegas terminating tenured professor Richard Sutton's employment after two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, followed by disputes over a purported settlement agreement that included a resignation and a new contract. Sutton filed suit alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and due process violations, and alternatively sought judicial review of the administrative termination decision; the district court denied UNLV's motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds and proceeded to a jury trial that resulted in judgment for Sutton. UNLV appealed, challenging the denial of summary judgment, trial errors, the treatment of the case as a civil action rather than administrative review, and issues involving prior stipulations and judgments. The court examined procedural matters such as res judicata, amendments to pleadings, and the requirements for administrative hearings under the university code.

labor & employmentprocedure

David Pressler sued the City of Reno after his termination from his long-held position as Director of Parks and Recreation, alleging due process violations in the termination process and the denial of his remaining accrued sick leave. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the ground that Pressler was an at-will employee with no protected property interest in continued employment or sick leave. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the 1997 city charter amendment converting appointed positions to at-will status did not apply retroactively, so Pressler retained for-cause protection at the time of his 1998 termination and was entitled to due process. The court also held that sick leave benefits provided as an employment benefit do not vest upon use and may end with proper termination of employment, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Marlon Javar Batin, a slot mechanic at the Nugget Hotel and Casino, who was convicted of three counts of embezzlement after shortages totaling about $40,000 were discovered in slot machines he had accessed. On en banc reconsideration, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions, concluding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the entrustment element of embezzlement. The court explained that Batin's job duties explicitly prohibited him from handling paper currency in the bill validators, so he never had lawful possession of the funds as required for that offense, even though the evidence might have supported a larceny charge under a different statute.

criminal law

The case involved Angel Tarango, an undocumented worker injured on the job in Nevada while employed by Champion Drywall, who received permanent partial disability benefits under the state's Industrial Insurance Act but was denied vocational rehabilitation benefits because he could not provide proof of legal work authorization via Form I-9. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of judicial review, upholding the appeals officer's decision to award PPD payments while denying vocational training. The court reasoned that although Nevada's workers' compensation laws cover all injured workers regardless of immigration status, federal law under the Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts the provision of vocational rehabilitation benefits when they would require or facilitate unlawful employment, and state law and equal protection considerations likewise bar such training. The ruling distinguished monetary compensatory benefits from active workforce reentry programs.

immigrationlabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a dispute between Casmyn Corporation and its former president Amyn Dahya over claims of breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of corporate funds, with Casmyn filing suit in Nevada district court and attempting to serve Dahya personally at his home in Spain through a local attorney. Dahya moved to quash the service, arguing it violated the Hague Convention on service abroad and Spanish civil procedure, but the district court denied the motion. Dahya petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to stop the lower court from exercising jurisdiction. The court granted the petition, holding that the service did not comply with the Hague Convention because it bypassed authorized channels and did not meet the narrow requirements of Article 19 for alternative methods permitted by Spanish law, nor did it follow Spain's required procedures for serving foreign judicial documents, such as through court-authorized means. As a result, the attempted service was invalid and could not confer jurisdiction.

procedure

The case concerned whether sheriff's deputies conducted an illegal seizure of Robert Lisenbee when they detained him while searching for a burglary suspect, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine that Lisenbee abandoned during a struggle and flight. The district court granted Lisenbee's motion to dismiss the trafficking charge, finding that the deputies lacked reasonable suspicion to continue the detention after he produced identification and that the resulting evidence was inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the initial approach and stop were justified by reasonable suspicion based on Lisenbee's resemblance to the suspect and his conduct at the residence, that the officers could perform a pat-down after he voluntarily revealed a knife, and that any seizure ended before the drugs were discarded. The court applied Terry v. Ohio standards to conclude that the encounter did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that the abandoned contraband was admissible.

criminal lawprocedure