In Productions & Leasing v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., the plaintiff sued the Nevada Gaming Commission, State Gaming Control Board, and their past and present members under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) and the federal RICO statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962, 1964) for alleged harms tied to gaming regulation. The court granted the state defendants' motion to dismiss those claims, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment confers sovereign immunity on the state entities and that neither the civil rights statutes nor RICO contains the clear congressional intent needed to abrogate that immunity. It further held that the individual officials enjoy absolute immunity from civil damages suits based on their official functions. The court also granted an unopposed motion to strike the plaintiff's supplemental filings.
This case involved Charles Agosto's motion to quash a grand jury subpoena requiring him to testify against his father, Joseph Agosto, who was a target of a federal criminal investigation, or alternatively for a protective order barring such questioning. The court granted the motion to quash, ruling that enforcement of the subpoena would infringe on the witness's constitutional protections. The core reasoning centered on the fundamental right to family privacy and autonomy under precedents like Meyer v. Nebraska, the First Amendment free exercise clause given the witness's religious obligation to honor his parents, and the severe psychological harm and societal damage from compelling intra-family testimony, as supported by expert evidence and policy considerations against forcing such loyalty conflicts.
criminal lawreligious libertycivil rightsfamily law
The case involved a defendant indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine who filed a motion to suppress her identity and the contraband found in her suitcase during a warrantless encounter with DEA agents at McCarran International Airport. The court conducted a de novo review and granted the motion to suppress. The core reasoning was that the initial stop amounted to an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment because agents retained the defendant's identification and ticket while seeking consent to search, distinguishing it from cases like United States v. Mendenhall, and that this illegality tainted the subsequent discovery of the evidence.
This case concerned competing claims to approximately $24,828 held by the City of Henderson under water and sewer refunding agreements owed to Bentonite, Inc. Valley Bank of Nevada asserted rights based on assignments of those agreements as collateral for loans, while the United States claimed priority through federal tax liens arising from 1974 assessments against Bentonite for unpaid taxes. The court held that the federal tax liens were entitled to priority over the bank's interests. The core reasoning was that priority is determined by federal law, under which an unperfected security interest under the UCC (due to failure to file financing statements with the Nevada Secretary of State) is subordinate to a federal tax lien, regardless of whether the bank qualified as a purchaser or lien creditor.
This case involved a labor dispute between Desert Palace, Inc. (Caesars Palace) and the union representing its showroom servers over a new Ticketron-based reservations system implemented in 1978. The system eliminated tipping for seat assignments and reduced servers' gratuity income from $78-125 per week to $4-5 per night. The union filed grievances claiming the change violated the collective bargaining agreement by treating all shows as "special events" under §18 (entitling servers to 15% of minimum charges) or by altering job duties enough to require bargaining under §1.01. An arbitrator ruled for the union on both grounds, but the district court reviewed the award under federal labor and arbitration statutes and found the arbitrator had misinterpreted the contract language on "special events," "tickets," and "coupons." The court therefore vacated the award and ordered a rehearing before the arbitrator.
The case concerned a special grand jury investigation into alleged racketeering, conspiracy, income tax evasion, and filing false returns involving Joseph V. Agosto and the Tropicana Hotel & Casino. Witnesses Albert Bardier, an accountant, and Joan Wheeler, an administrative assistant, were served subpoenas duces tecum for extensive financial and corporate records spanning 1973-1978 but refused to comply, asserting First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights along with a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 3504 of unlawful electronic surveillance. The government applied for contempt orders against the witnesses. The court analyzed the § 3504 claim, holding that the government must respond with a formal affidavit rather than an informal letter, rejected the applicability of an accountant-client privilege in federal court, and found other constitutional arguments unavailing under precedents such as United States v. Calandra.
