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

The case involved Joseph Lee Proferes's conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale after police executing a search warrant at a residence detained him when he knocked on the door, performed a pat-down search, and questioned him without Miranda warnings, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine. Proferes moved to suppress his statement and the drugs, arguing the detention lacked reasonable suspicion and violated his rights, but the district court denied the motion; he then pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the officers' routine practice of seizing and searching anyone knocking during a warrant execution violated the Fourth Amendment absent objective facts creating a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, and that the evidence was not subject to the inevitable discovery doctrine due to the lack of independent lawful means. The court found the detention was based only on a hunch, not supported by Terry v. Ohio standards or NRS 171.123(1).

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved appellant Frank Peck's conviction on two counts of sexual assault arising from an encounter following a university football game, where he claimed the acts were consensual. On appeal, Peck challenged the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on lesser-included or lesser-related offenses, the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a search of his apartment, the admission of his wife's testimony, and the retrial after a mistrial on double jeopardy grounds. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the requested jury instructions were not warranted under the circumstances, the search was supported by valid consent, spousal testimony was properly admitted, and double jeopardy did not bar retrial. The court reasoned that the defense theory and evidence did not support lesser offense instructions, the consent to search was voluntary despite conflicting accounts, the spousal privilege statute did not prohibit the testimony, and the mistrial declaration after the jury's inability to reach a verdict was proper.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sengel v. IGT, the appellant claimed a jackpot win on a slot machine at a casino after it malfunctioned, abruptly stopping the reels with three jackpot symbols in an uneven line, though the machine later reset to a non-winning combination following clearance of an internal error. The Nevada Gaming Control Board investigated the incident, concluded there was no valid win due to the malfunction and misalignment, and denied the claim after a hearing; the district court affirmed this outcome on judicial review. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the district court's judgment, determining that the Board's decision was supported by evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law under the standards set forth in NRS 463.3666(3).

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Boykins v. State, the appellant was charged with first-degree murder for fatally shooting her long-term abusive partner after years of alleged physical abuse; she raised self-defense and introduced expert testimony on battered woman syndrome to explain her state of mind and her initial claim that the shooting was accidental. The jury convicted her of involuntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon, and the trial court declined to give her proposed jury instruction detailing how syndrome evidence could be used to assess the reasonableness of her belief in imminent danger and the credibility of her testimony. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the specific instruction was required because existing self-defense instructions did not adequately address the syndrome's impact on perceptions of danger or on the defendant's statements. The court also directed correction of the sentence to remove the inapplicable deadly-weapon enhancement for the unintentional manslaughter conviction.

criminal lawfamily law

The case concerned a traffic stop by Nevada Highway Patrol officers during a criminal interdiction operation, where the driver, Jessie Johnson, gave consent to search the vehicle for drugs, alcohol, or guns after a verbal warning for a traffic violation. Officers searched the car, including by removing screws and a panel from the dashboard, and recovered three bindles of narcotics. The district court granted the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that a reasonable person would not have understood the general consent to authorize dismantling parts of the vehicle. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court erred in finding the search exceeded the scope of consent, applying standards that limit consent-based searches to their terms and considering the totality of circumstances, including the defendants' lack of objection during the search.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nicholas v. State, former Nevada legislators David Nicholas and Robert Craddock sued the state and the Public Employees' Retirement Board after their pension benefits were reduced following the repeal of Assembly Bill 820, which had temporarily quadrupled legislators' retirement payments. The appellants, who had retired during the five-month period the law was in effect but were not serving in the legislature when it passed, claimed a vested contractual right to the higher benefits and argued that the repeal violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district courts granted summary judgment to the respondents, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the increased benefits never vested. The court reasoned that pension rights for public employees arise from reliance on benefits promised during their period of service, and because the appellants' legislative service had already ended before A.B. 820 was enacted, they acquired no protected interest in the temporary increase; the court also noted the Nevada Constitution's prohibition on mid-term compensation changes as supporting non-vesting.

labor & employment

The case concerned relatives of victims in a fatal traffic accident who filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the state and others, and during discovery sought to depose a newspaper reporter about statements attributed to a police officer in his published articles. The reporter refused to answer questions citing Nevada's news shield statute, and the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, concluding that the statute provides reporters with a privilege against compelled disclosure of information obtained during investigations, including the contents of published articles. The court determined that this statutory protection applied directly to the deposition questions at issue, making extraordinary relief unwarranted.

free speechproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Deloris Beckwith, a long-term Dillard Department Stores employee who injured her back at work, filed a workers' compensation claim, and was demoted to an entry-level sales position with a 40% pay cut upon her return, prompting her resignation and lawsuit for tortious constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury awarded her compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees, which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Nevada's public policy prohibits retaliatory actions against employees for filing workers' compensation claims, creating an exception to at-will employment, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on both claims. The court also approved the attorney's fee award under the relevant offer-of-judgment rules after reviewing the trial court's discretionary factors.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a defamation and tortious interference lawsuit brought by Sahara Gaming and its affiliate against a labor union. During a labor dispute, the union sent a letter to a company negotiating a multimillion-dollar deal with Sahara, quoting allegations of fraud from a Mississippi court complaint against Sahara; the deal was later cancelled. The trial court granted summary judgment to the union on the defamation and related claims, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the fair report privilege provides absolute immunity for accurate republications of statements from judicial proceedings, even if the republisher knows the statements are false or acts with intent to harm, because the public benefit of access to court information outweighs potential individual harm. The ruling applied to both the defamation claim and the derivative interference claims.

free speechlabor & employmenttorts & liability