Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mdc Rests. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Oct. 27, 2016), Alysa Grimes
Mdc Rests. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Oct. 27, 2016), Alysa Grimes
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
To “provide” health benefits under the Minimum Wage Amendment, an employer need only offer to employees (rather than enroll them in) a qualifying health benefit plan. Tips are not included in an employee’s gross taxable income for calculating maximum health benefit plan premiums.
Perry V. Terrible Herbst, Inc., Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 27, 2016), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Perry V. Terrible Herbst, Inc., Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 27, 2016), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) of the Nevada Constitution does not have a specific statute of limitations provision. Because the MWA is closely analogous to recovery for back pay under NRS 608.260, the two-year statute of limitations provision in NRS 608.260 applies, and not the catch-all four-year period from NRS 11.220.
State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Schneider), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 12, 2016), Ping Chang
State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Schneider), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 12, 2016), Ping Chang
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when overturning a misdemeanor driving under the influence conviction by failing to consider the state’s evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that Carson City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) 8.04.050(1) is (1) unconstitutionally overbroad because it “is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words” and (2) vague because it lacked sufficient guidelines and gave the police too much discretion in its enforcement.