18 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Five Star Capital Corp. v. Rubygreen2 sentences2017Id. at 707, 262 P.3d at 1139 ("adjudication of a [later-filed damages] claim should not be precluded when it appears 'from a consideration of the entire statutory scheme that litigation, which on ordinary analysis might be considered objectionable as repetitive, [was] intended to be permitted') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26 cmt. e); see Five Star, 124 Nev. at 1058, 194 P.3d at 716 (recognizing "a public policy exception to claim preclusion in cases involving a determination of paternity") (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 cmt. e). 2017Id. at 707, 262 P.3d at 1139 ("adjudication of a [later-filed damages] claim should not be precluded when it appears 'from a consideration of the entire statutory scheme that litigation, which on ordinary analysis might be considered objectionable as repetitive, [was] intended to be permitted') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26 cmt. e); see Five Star, 124 Nev. at 1058, 194 P.3d at 716 (recognizing "a public policy exception to claim preclusion in cases involving a determination of paternity") (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 cmt. e). | 5 | 5 |
Sands Regent v. Valgardsongreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Chavez v. Sievers, 118 Nev. 288, 293-94 , 43 P.3d 1022, 1025-26 (2002) (declining to recognize a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine for a racial discrimination claim against a small employer not subject to Nevada anti-discrimination laws); Sands Regent, 105 Nev. at 439-40 , 777 P.2d at 899-900 (declining to allow an employee to recover under a tortious discharge theory for age discrimination). 2022See, e.g., Chavez v. Sievers, 118 Nev. 288, 293-94 , 43 P.3d 1022, 1025-26 (2002) (declining to recognize a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine for a racial discrimination claim against a small employer not subject to Nevada anti-discrimination laws); Sands Regent, 105 Nev. at 439-40 , 777 P.2d at 899-900 (declining to allow an employee to recover under a tortious discharge theory for age discrimination). | 2 | 2 |
GC Wallace, Inc. v. EIGHTH JUD. DIST. CT.green2 sentences2017Id. at 707, 262 P.3d at 1139 ("adjudication of a [later-filed damages] claim should not be precluded when it appears 'from a consideration of the entire statutory scheme that litigation, which on ordinary analysis might be considered objectionable as repetitive, [was] intended to be permitted') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26 cmt. e); see Five Star, 124 Nev. at 1058, 194 P.3d at 716 (recognizing "a public policy exception to claim preclusion in cases involving a determination of paternity") (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 cmt. e). 2017Id. at 707 , 262 P.3d at 1139 ("adjudication of a [later-filed damages] claim should not be precluded when it appears 'from a consideration of the entire statutory scheme that litigation, which on ordinary analysis might be considered objectionable as repetitive, [was] intended to be permitted') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26 cmt. e); see Five Star, 124 Nev. at 1058 , 194 P.3d at 716 (recognizing "a public policy exception to claim preclusion in cases involving a determination of paternity") (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 cmt. e). | 2 | 2 |
Chavez v. Sieversgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Chavez v. Sievers, 118 Nev. 288, 293-94 , 43 P.3d 1022, 1025-26 (2002) (declining to recognize a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine for a racial discrimination claim against a small employer not subject to Nevada anti-discrimination laws); Sands Regent, 105 Nev. at 439-40 , 777 P.2d at 899-900 (declining to allow an employee to recover under a tortious discharge theory for age discrimination). 2022See, e.g., Chavez v. Sievers, 118 Nev. 288, 293-94 , 43 P.3d 1022, 1025-26 (2002) (declining to recognize a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine for a racial discrimination claim against a small employer not subject to Nevada anti-discrimination laws); Sands Regent, 105 Nev. at 439-40 , 777 P.2d at 899-900 (declining to allow an employee to recover under a tortious discharge theory for age discrimination). | 1 | 1 |
Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.green1 sentence2012See Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 82 P.3d 1076, 1083 (Utah 2003) (“[T]he alleged fraud of one defendant generally cannot be imputed to another defendant for tolling purposes when the other defendant did not participate in the alleged fraud.’ ’ (footnote omitted)); see also Brown, 651 P.2d at 821 (declining to toll a medical malpractice statute of limitations as to one defendant when the only alleged concealment was by a different defendant). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Bleiberggreen1 sentence2012See Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 82 P.3d 1076, 1083 (Utah 2003) (“[T]he alleged fraud of one defendant generally cannot be imputed to another defendant for tolling purposes when the other defendant did not participate in the alleged fraud.’ ’ (footnote omitted)); see also Brown, 651 P.2d at 821 (declining to toll a medical malpractice statute of limitations as to one defendant when the only alleged concealment was by a different defendant). | 1 | 1 |
Bickel v. Bickelgreen1 sentence1984See Bickel v. Bickel, supra; Winter v. Winter, supra. Respondent nevertheless cites cases from other jurisdictions which have refused to find a public policy exception to their own homestead laws in cases involving enforcement of support benefits. | 1 | 1 |
Yager v. Yagergreen2 sentences1984See Yager v. Yager, 7 Cal.2d 213 , 60 P.2d 422 (1936); Putz v. Putz, 572 P.2d 970 (Okla. 1977). 1984See Yager v. Yager, 7 Cal.2d 213 , 60 P.2d 422 (1936); Putz v. Putz, 572 P.2d 970 (Okla. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Bullock Insulation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016However, this court has held that the district court must "engage in a public policy analysis particular to each lien waiver provision that the court is asked to enforce." Id. 2016However, this court has held that the district court must "engage in a public policy analysis particular to each lien waiver provision that the court is asked to enforce." Id. | 4 | 2016–2016 |
Hansen v. Harrah's
green
2 sentences1995Accordingly, a narrow exception to the at-will doctrine was created which recognized that "retaliatory discharge by an employer stemming from the filing of a workmen's compensation claim by an injured employee is actionable in tort." Id. at 64, 675 P.2d at 397 . *556 Martin seeks to place his own situation within a public policy exception relating to age discrimination through means of an internal letter or memorandum written by Besse discussing the basis for the termination. 1991Thus, in Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60 , 675 P.2d 394 (1984), this court recognized that "[m]any other states ... have also adopted or recognized a public policy exception to the at-will rule making retaliatory discharge for filing a workmen's compensation claim actionable in tort." Id. at 64 , 675 P.2d at 396 , citing cases (emphasis added). | 4 | 1989–1995 |
Blankenship v. O'Sullivan Plastics Corp.
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 1163 , 866 P.2d at 294 . 1996Id. at 1163 , 866 P.2d at 294 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Brown v. Transcon Lines
green
1 sentence1984Sventko v. Kroger Company, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1976); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. 1978); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Ore. 1978); Lally v. Copygraphics, 428 A.2d 1317 (N.J. 1981); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Department of Labor Services, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1981); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984Sventko v. Kroger Company, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1976); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. 1978); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Ore. 1978); Lally v. Copygraphics, 428 A.2d 1317 (N.J. 1981); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Department of Labor Services, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1981); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Putz v. Putz
neutral
2 sentences1984See Yager v. Yager, 7 Cal.2d 213 , 60 P.2d 422 (1936); Putz v. Putz, 572 P.2d 970 (Okla. 1977). 1984See Yager v. Yager, 60 p.2d 422 (Cal. 1936); Putz v. Putz, 572 P.2d 970 (Okla. 1977). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Murphy v. City of Topeka
green
1 sentence1984Sventko v. Kroger Company, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1976); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. 1978); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Ore. 1978); Lally v. Copygraphics, 428 A.2d 1317 (N.J. 1981); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Department of Labor Services, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1981); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lally v. Copygraphics
green
1 sentence1984Sventko v. Kroger Company, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1976); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. 1978); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Ore. 1978); Lally v. Copygraphics, 428 A.2d 1317 (N.J. 1981); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Department of Labor Services, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1981); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Sventko v. Kroger Co.
green
1 sentence1984Sventko v. Kroger Company, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1976); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. 1978); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Ore. 1978); Lally v. Copygraphics, 428 A.2d 1317 (N.J. 1981); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Department of Labor Services, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1981); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984Sventko v. Kroger Company, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1976); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. 1978); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Ore. 1978); Lally v. Copygraphics, 428 A.2d 1317 (N.J. 1981); Murphy v. City of Topeka-Shawnee County Department of Labor Services, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1981); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Winter v. Winter
green
1 sentence1984See Bickel v. Bickel, supra; Winter v. Winter, supra. Respondent nevertheless cites cases from other jurisdictions which have refused to find a public policy exception to their own homestead laws in cases involving enforcement of support benefits. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.