Backman v. Gelbman [State of Nevada], 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Feb. 13, 2025)

This case pertains to the determination of which child support order controls the calculation of a 20-percent change in income in NRS 125B.145(4). Under this statute, the district court is required to conduct a review of the child support order when the obligor parent’s gross monthly income changes by at least 20-percent. In interpretating NRS 125.145(4), the district court did not require a review hearing when a 20-percent change in income had not occurred since the most recent hearing. However, the Nevada Court of Appeals held that a proper interpretation of the statute’s limit on judicial discretion requires mandatory review when a 20-percent change has occurred from the time of the last substantive order which set forth the child support obligation. Additionally, the Nevada Court of Appeals clarifies that prima facie evidence is the standard for determining whether sufficient evidence exists to prove these changed circumstances

Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Company of California, Inc., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 6, 2025)

The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer in a breach of implied warranty claim. Modern Welding Company of California manufactured an underground storage tank, which was purchased for use by Golden Gate in 2008. Golden Gate discovered a crack in the tank in 2016, and brought suit for breach of implied warranty against Golden Gate in 2019. The district court granted summary judgment for Modern. Golden Gate appealed, arguing that for a claim for breach of implied warranty under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code is subject to discovery tolling. The Supreme Court of Nevada disagreed, and held that discovery tolling does not apply to a breach of implied warranty claim under the UCC. Additionally, the Court upheld an award of attorney fees to Modern

In re: Petition For Change Of Name (Fleek) C/W 88016/88190, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Feb. 6, 2025)

A denial of an applicant’s name-change petition with prejudice fails to preclude the applicant from re-filing the petition

Copyright, eBooks, and the Future of Digital Lending

Public libraries face a digital lending crisis. Even as library patrons demand greater access to digital materials, eBook publishers have subjected libraries to onerous licensing terms. These include prices substantially higher than those charged to the general public, as well as stringent constraints on license duration and/or loan volume, forcing many libraries to repurchase their eBooks every one or two years. Some publishers are releasing new books only in digital formats, making it even more costly for libraries to maintain robust collections. eBook publishers also compel libraries to use specific digital lending platforms which pose risks to patron privacy. At the same time, many public libraries face budget cuts as well as politically-motivated book bans, reducing their ability to meet local patrons’ needs, and forcing patrons to search for materials from other sources. To better serve patrons, some libraries have resorted to self-help in the form of controlled digital lending (CDL), producing and lending their own scans of printed materials, lending the digital copy to only one patron at a time, while making the print copy unavailable for the duration of the digital loan. A number of these libraries have pooled their collections to provide CDL through the Internet Archive. However, under precedents interpreting the first sale rule and the fair use defense, CDL is likely to constitute copyright infringement, especially in light of the Second Circuit’s 2024 decision in Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive. At the state level, actual and proposed legislation, including a recently developed Model Law, would compel eBook publishers to offer reasonable licensing terms to public libraries. However, to the extent that such laws impede the exclusive rights of copyright owners to decide whether and how to exploit their works, they are likely to be preempted by federal copyright law. A novel approach under consideration in Connecticut is likely to avoid preemption, but does not offer a complete solution to the nationwide problem. The better solution is to amend federal copyright law to ensure that nonprofit libraries can obtain eBook licenses on reasonable terms. Such an amendment could draw inspiration from the Model Law as well as the European Union’s rental right, and could take the form of either an exception or a compulsory license. Consistent with the long tradition of library exceptions already included in federal copyright law, such an amendment would recognize the critical role that libraries play in maintaining an informed electorate

Soldo-Allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 13, 2025)

The Nevada Court of Appeals held that, when considering domestic violence as part of a best interest factors analysis in a custody determination, the appropriate evidentiary standard is the default preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of family law—not the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard that is used for the domestic violence rebuttable presumption which may lead to the denial of a parent’s custody. Additionally, the Court held that district courts must provide a legal basis for appellate review when excluding trial court exhibits for timeliness, because such exclusions constitute sanctions that must meet the legal standards found in rules like NRCP 16.205(g) and NRCP 37(c)

Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era

“Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era” analyzes how the emergence and adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) will fundamentally disrupt the traditional billable hour model that has dominated the industry since the 1960s. Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano contend that GenAI’s ability to perform routine legal tasks quickly and accurately will force law firms to shift away from billing structures based primarily on time spent (or inputs) and toward models that better reflect client value (or outputs). The authors interviewed law firm leaders to gain an “in the trenches” view of emerging trends in this regard. Based on this primary research, there’s no doubt that GenAI is already transforming legal practice by automating tasks traditionally performed by junior associates and paralegals and causing leaders to think about how their firms will make money in the future. The authors discuss how GenAI threatens the pyramid-shaped staffing model that has supported firm profitability and predicts that firms must evolve toward new organizational structures—potentially “rocket,” “diamond,” “starfish,” or “cylinder” models—that rely less on large numbers of junior attorneys and more on technology-enabled senior lawyers providing high-value advice. Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano also discuss how the billable-hour economic model is fraught with inefficiency and poor scalability, talent retention challenges, disincentives to innovate, and ethical concerns around reasonable billing. Despite the shortcomings, the authors observe that law firms haven’t moved away from the billable hour for three primary reasons: (1) there has been no external factor that has had the muscle to catalyze change; (2) clients haven’t had the collective fortitude to effectuate a change; and (3) despite their recognition of the shortcomings, law firms have not changed the model because it is making them wealthy. The authors predict that this situation will soon change due to the seismic force of GenAI. GenAI will change the legacy economic model as widespread adoption of GenAI as a legal service delivery tool now occurs. When GenAI tools are used to deliver legal services, all frailties in the billable hour economic model are exposed. Most important, when routine work moves from humans to technology, the bottom tier of the pyramid will fail to generate the rich results that law firm partners want

CCMSI v. Odell, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Jan. 30, 2025)

The court held that an employee seeking a conclusive presumption for disabling heart issues under NRS 617.457(11) only needs to take remedial action against predisposing conditions that caused those issues. The court acknowledged that the statute provides an affirmative defense for employers against workers’ compensation claims if they can prove that the employee failed to correct conditions leading to heart disease. However, the court clarified that the plain language of the statute shows that the affirmative defense only works if the predisposing condition actually caused the heart disease and does not apply to all conditions. Therefore, even if an employee fails to correct a predisposing condition that is not the cause of their disease, they are still entitled to the conclusive presumption and workers’ compensation