Harry E. Claiborne

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.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

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.

labor & employment

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.

criminal lawproceduretaxes

In United States v. Northrup, the defendant was tried on charges of violating and conspiring to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), based on allegations that he assisted others in obtaining and using incendiary devices to firebomb restaurants on behalf of Culinary Union Local 226. After the court granted acquittals to co-defendants at the close of the government's case, the jury acquitted Northrup on the substantive RICO count but convicted him on the conspiracy count. On post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(c) and for a new trial under Rule 33, the court denied relief, holding that the evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to the government, including testimony about Northrup supplying materials and introducing contacts for the bombings, payments he received, and his own admissions—permitted a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further concluded that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and that claimed evidentiary or credibility issues did not warrant a new trial.

criminal lawlabor & employment

The case involved a wrongful death claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought by Gladys Snow, mother and administratrix of Randall Alan Chambers, against the United States and its contractor REECo after Chambers fell to his death while working at the Nevada Test Site in 1978. The plaintiff alleged negligence in safety practices, hiring, and site conditions, but the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. The core reasoning was that under Nevada law, the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries and deaths, barring any other claims against the covered employer REECo or the statutory employer United States once workers' compensation benefits such as funeral expenses had been paid.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved indigent parents in Nevada facing state petitions for child neglect or abuse that could result in termination of their parental rights in the Eighth Judicial District Court. The parents sought a preliminary injunction and declaratory relief after their motions for appointed counsel were denied based on court policy. The court ruled in favor of the named plaintiffs, holding that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointment of counsel for indigent parents when there is a reasonable possibility of termination of parental rights or prolonged separation from a child. The decision applied a case-by-case analysis considering factors such as the length of potential separation, disputed facts, the parent's ability to handle documents and witnesses, and the need for a record of any denial for review. The ruling drew on precedents like Gideon v. Wainwright and emphasized the fundamental nature of parental rights and the imbalance of resources against the state.

family lawcivil rights

The case involves a plaintiff who graduated from a non-ABA-accredited correspondence law school, was admitted to the California bar, and sought a waiver of Nevada Supreme Court Rule 51(3) to sit for the Nevada bar exam, which requires an ABA-approved degree. After the Nevada Supreme Court denied her waiver petition—while granting waivers to several male applicants from similar schools—she sued in federal court, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to alleged gender discrimination in the waiver process. The court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper parties, and failure to state a claim, as well as the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. It held that federal jurisdiction exists to review the administration of bar rules, dismissed the Board of Bar Examiners and Board of Governors as improper parties, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to pursue a due process claim against individual justices, while granting the preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's likelihood of success and other factors.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Michael G. Austin, an inmate serving sentences for kidnapping and robbery, who sued his former public defender, members of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, and a correctional center superintendent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He challenged the constitutionality of his parole denials, the denial of work release, and advice given at sentencing, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court granted summary judgment to the public defender on grounds of absolute immunity for acts within his judicial function. It dismissed the claims against the other defendants, holding that under Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, Nevada law created no protected liberty interest in discretionary parole or work release, which applies only to the final six months of confinement.

civil rightscriminal law

Plaintiff Anne deBruin sued defendant William Sowers, alleging violations of federal securities laws (15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77l, and 78j) arising from her 1974 purchase of unregistered Andromeda Broadcasting stock, which she made after Sowers advised her during a tax-preparation visit and assured her of returns and a radio-station acquisition. The court held that Sowers was not liable under any of the statutes. It reasoned that Sowers was neither an issuer, underwriter, nor dealer, that he acted only as deBruin’s agent and not Andromeda’s, and that he lacked the scienter required for a § 78j claim because he honestly believed the investment was sound and did not knowingly mislead her.

business & regulatory

This case involves the State of Nevada seeking to collect unpaid excise taxes on cigarette sales from the operator of a smoke shop located on an Indian reservation. The defendant removed the action to federal court, arguing that the state's taxing authority was preempted by federal law and violated the Commerce Clause. The court granted the state's motion to remand the case back to state court, reasoning that the federal issues raised were affirmative defenses rather than essential elements of the state's claim as presented in the complaint, and thus did not provide grounds for federal jurisdiction under removal statutes. Although the defendant could have initiated a declaratory judgment action in federal court on these grounds, the rules governing removal do not allow the case to be removed based on anticipated defenses.

taxesfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Vasquez v. City of Reno, a Hispanic woman in her early forties who worked temporarily as a dispatcher for the City of Reno sued the city and various officials, claiming discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and race in the denial of her application for a permanent female jailer position, as well as retaliation for her complaints to the civil service commission. The court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim without leave to amend on the ground that the statute requires discrimination based solely on race, whereas the complaint alleged an intertwined mix of race, sex, and age factors. Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2), 1986, 2000e, and 29 U.S.C. § 623 were dismissed with leave to amend for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or to allege a municipal policy or custom under Monell v. Department of Social Services, while certain individual defendants were dismissed entirely; the court allowed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to proceed against two specific defendants.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a petition by the NLRB Regional Director under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking a preliminary injunction against Circo Resorts, Inc., based on charges that the company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by discharging employees Tom Sorce and Alan Bledsoe for union activities, interrogating employees, and making threats related to union support. The court applied a two-part test requiring reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and that the requested relief was just and proper. It found reasonable cause due to factual disputes that, if resolved in the Director's favor, supported the allegations, and it granted injunctive relief ordering the company to cease the prohibited conduct and reinstate the employees. However, it denied the request for an interim bargaining order because no appropriate bargaining unit had yet been determined by the Board, preserving the status quo on that issue.

labor & employmentprocedure