Chur v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Feb. 27, 2020)

Former directors of Lewis & Clark LTC Risk Retention Group, Inc. filed a writ of mandamus in the Nevada Supreme Court, seeking (1) direction concerning the district court’s application of Shoen v. SAC Holding Corp. and (2) relief from that court’s judgment. The directors asserted that gross negligence does not support a viable claim for personal liability under the NRS 78.138. The Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Nevada maintained that gross negligence is an appropriate claim against directors under Shoen. The Court elected to consider the director’s petition for a writ of mandamus, clarified the language in Shoen, and held that NRS 78.138 provides the exclusive mechanism to hold directors and officers individually liable for damages in Nevada. The statute says that “knowing violations of law” require a knowledge of wrongfulness. Therefore, gross negligence allegations do not state an actionable claim under NRS 78.138

City of Mesquite v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 33

The City of Mesquite asked the Court to determine which statute of limitations (“SOL”) applies to a local government employee\u27s complaint alleging both that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The City argued that the claims are subject to a six-month limitations period under Nevada’s Local Government Employee-Management Relations Act (“EMRA”). The Court declined to answer the question. Instead, it clarified that there is no private cause of action to enforce a claim against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation in the first instance. But, exclusive original jurisdiction over a claim against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation is vested in the Employee-Management Relations Board (“EMRB”), and the district courts only have jurisdiction to review the EMRB’s decision

Guns in the Sky: Nevada\u27s Firearm Laws, 1 October, and Next Steps

With incidences of high-profile mass shootings as well as daily gun violence continuing to rise throughout the United States, Nevada residents cannot help but wonder what the state is doing to stop and to prevent future incidents. Nevada has historically had permissive gun laws, being part of the “Wild West,” but in modern days, particularly since the 1 October shooting, Nevada legislators have enacted more gun laws. Additionally, judges and justices in Nevada courts have had to interpret new and old gun laws in novel ways, due to living in the modern era where gun violence seems to be the norm rather than the exception. This paper examines firearms legislation in Nevada historically, in the modern era and as a result of 1 October. We then examine one case in-depth, Parsons v. Colt’s, which arose from the 1 October shooting, and is currently active in the United States District Court, District of Nevada. We then examine further the three Certified Questions from Parsons currently certified to the Nevada Supreme Court and provide recommendations for rulings on the questions