Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When Employee left his employment, Employee and Employer entered into a consulting agreement containing restrictive covenants prohibiting Employee from disclosing Employer's confidential information. After Employee purchased another competing company, Employer filed a motion alleging breach of the agreement and seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce the Agreement's covenants. The district court granted Employer's request, concluding that Employee had likely violated several provisions of the agreement and had misappropriated trade secrets in violation of Nevada's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Employee then filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction upon termination of the agreement, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court's order granting preliminary injunctive relief; and (2) reversed the court's order denying Employee's motion to dissolve the injunctive provisions, finding that the court improperly relied on the terminated agreement in declining to dissolve the injunction and failed to make findings as to the continued existence of a trade secret and for what constitutes a "reasonable period of time" for maintaining an injunction under the Act. View "Finkel v. Cashman Prof'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee suffered a work-related injury to his back in 2004. Employee had also suffered previous accidents resulting in injuries to his lower back. A rating physician determined that Employee's permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits for the 2004 injury should be calculated using a net twenty-six percent impairment rating. Employer's Insurer offered an award to Employee based on a net seventeen percent impairment rating. An appeals officer ordered Insurer to offer Employee a PPD award based on the original impairment rating. The district court affirmed, concluding that Employee's prior impairment rating, which was calculated using an older version of the AMA Guides, should be deducted from his current impairment rating, which was calculated using the current edition of the AMA Guides. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the governing statute required the rating physician to reconcile the different editions of the AMA Guides by first recalculating the percentage of the previous impairment rating using the current edition and then subtracting that recalculated percentage from the current level of impairment; and (2) the district court and appeals officer erred in determining the amount due, and therefore, the PPD award based on the seventeen percent impairment rating for the current injury was proper. View "Pub. Agency Comp. Trust v. Blake" on Justia Law

Mallory Warburton was working for the City of North Las Vegas when she was involved in a car accident and suffered numerous injuries. The City started paying workers' compensation benefits to Warburton at a rate of $10 an hour. At the time of the accident, Warburton was expected to make $12 an hour because of a promotion to manager of one of the City's pools. After an administrative appeal, a hearing officer instructed the City to redetermine Warburton's benefits using the $12-an-hour rate of pay for a pool manager. An appeals officer reversed, concluding Warburton's benefits should be based on the $10-an-hour rate of pay she was actually receiving at the time of the accident. The district court reversed the appeals officer's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appeals officer's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and that substantial evidence supported the district court's determination that (1) Warburton's primary job at the time of the accident was that of pool manager, and (2) Warburton's workers' compensation benefits must be determined using an average monthly wage calculation at the $12-an-hour rate of pay. View "City of North Las Vegas v. Warburton" on Justia Law

Eric Spannbauer, a police officer with the North Las Vegas Police Department, was asked to resign by the City Police Department Association. Spannbauer resigned, signing a letter of agreement prepared by the Department. Spannbauer later filed a complaint with the Employee-Management Relation Board (EMRB) against the Association, the City, and the Department, alleging multiple prohibited practices in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 288, including gender discrimination. The EMRB found that the City and Department had committed prohibited labor practices and that the Association had breached its duty of fair representation. The City and the Department petitioned the district court for judicial review, which the district court denied. The City, on behalf of itself and the Department, filed an appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the EMRB's finding that the City and Department discriminated against Sannbauer on the basis of his gender in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 288.110(1)(f); and (2) the EMRB appropriately disregarded the resignation agreement, including the covenant not to sue, as there was substantial evidence that the agreement was a culmination of prohibited practices in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 288.270(1). View "City of North Las Vegas v. State Employee-Mgmt. Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Kelly Encoe alleged that he was struck by a taxicab owned by petitioner Yellow Cab of Reno and driven by Timothy Willis. In his amended complaint, Encoe asserted that Yellow Cab was liable for Encoe's injuries under a respondeat superior theory. Yellow Cab moved for summary judgment, arguing that Nev. Rev. Stat. 706.473 authorized it to lease the taxicab to Willis as an independent contractor, and because Willis was an independent contractor, Yellow Cab could not be held liable for the incident. The district court denied Yellow Cab's motion, determining that the nature of the relationship between Yellow Cab and Willis was a question of fact for the jury, without addressing Section 706.473's potentially dispositive application. The Supreme Court denied Yellow Cab's petition for a writ of mandamus but granted Yellow Cab's petition for a rehearing because it overlooked a material question of law regarding the application of Section 706.473. The Court ultimately denied the writ due to policy but noted that the district court may wish to reconsider its reasoning for denying summary judgment because it did not render a thorough resolution of the issues before it on summary judgment. View "Yellow Cab of Reno v. Dist. Ct." on Justia Law

Appellant Lazario Ruiz was a City of North Las Vegas police officer. While off duty, Appellant got into an argument with his brother and a business associate. An investigation was launched. Based on what it perceived to be a lack of truthfulness and unprofessional conduct, the North Las Vegas Police Department (NLVPD) terminated Appellantâs employment. Following his termination and pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the police Union filed a grievance on behalf of Appellant. The Unionâs grievance asserted several specific violations of Appellantâs rights from the interview the NLVPD conducted. The grievance was sent to arbitration pursuant to the CBA. After a hearing, the arbitrator concluded that the NLVPD had just cause to terminate Appellant. The Union then assigned its right to challenge the arbitratorâs decision back to Appellant, and Appellant individually petitioned the district court to vacate the decision. The City moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellantâs right to challenge the arbitratorâs decision was not assignable. The City argued that Appellant lacked standing to bring a lawsuit since it was the Union who was a party to the arbitration, and not Appellant. The district court dismissed Appellantâs case, and Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. After a careful review of the CBA, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellant did have standing to sue the City in district court following arbitration. The Court reversed the district courtâs judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.