Jaramillo v. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020)

The Court found a plaintiff is not required to provide expert testimony to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion when the plaintiff is relying on the res ipsa loquitur statute’s prima facie case of negligence. Rather, plaintiff must only establish facts that entitle it to a rebuttable presumption of negligence under Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute. Whether a defendant can rebut the presumption through their own expert testimony or evidence is a question of fact for the jury

Shades of Belonging

Examines data from the 2000 Census and information from surveys and focus groups conducted by the center to look at how Hispanics view their racial identities

Dispersal and Concentration: Patterns of Latino Residential Settlement

Uses 1990 and 2000 Census data to determine how trends in residential settlement patterns among the Hispanic population changed over the course of a decade

\u3cem\u3ePhillips v. City of Whitefish\u3c/em\u3e: Legislative or Administrative, That Is the Referendum Question

Under Montana law, the power of citizens to repeal local government resolutions by referendum extends only to legislative acts. In Phillips v. City of Whitefish, the Montana Supreme Court held that a resolution amending an interlocal agreement between the City of Whitefish and Flathead County was an administrative act, despite the legislative nature of the original interlocal agreement

In Re: Discipline of James Colin, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Sep. 19, 2019)

The court found James Colin made statements he knew were false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Colin also engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court suspended him for six months and one day

All For One, And One for All-Comers! University Nondiscrimination Policies in Light of Hosanna-Tabor and the Ministerial Exception

In light of the more recent Hosanna-Tabor decision, this Comment seeks to answer these questions by extending the reasoning behind the ministerial exception to the university context in order to build a foundation upon which a future exception can be built to ensure that religious student groups are sufficiently free to choose their own leaders. Part II sets forth a brief history of the ministerial exception and its application in the circuit courts. Part III addresses two recent Supreme Court cases, Martinez and Hosanna-Tabor, and their practical effect on religious liberty, as well as the public’s perception of both cases. Part IV then offers observations and comparisons regarding antidiscrimination legislation and their university based counterparts and the parties affected by both, as well as a brief explanation of the lack of distinction between governmental imposition of monetary penalties and governmental withholding of benefits. Part V explores the hypothetical application of current case law regarding the ministerial exception to the relationship between a student-chapter president of Christian Legal Society—the party bringing suit in Martinez—and the organization on the whole