Wednesday, April 18, 2018 - Las Vegas - Silver/Tao/Gibbons
Dean vs. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Docket Number: 71798
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
Appellant Glenn D. Dean is an inmate, who filed a civil rights complaint against the Nevada Department of Corrections, the State of Nevada, and several employees of High Desert State Prison (“respondents”). Dean alleged that he was retaliated against for filing grievances challenging the warden’s ban on electric musical keyboards. He filed a motion to compel discovery, which the district court denied. Dean and respondents filed their respective motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Dean’s motion for summary judgment and granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Dean argues that the district court erred by: (1) granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact, and the district court did not construe the facts in his favor; and (2) denying his motion to compel without his presence at the hearing on the motion.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
Young vs. Circus Circus Casinos, INC.
Docket Number: 70551
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals
Appellant Jason Young was injured when an elevator handrail broke, aggravating a preexisting condition. Young sued the landowner, Circus Circus, and the elevator maintenance company, Thyssenkrupp. A jury found in favor of the defendants. Young then filed a NRCP 59(a) motion for a new trial or, alternatively, a 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law on negligence and a new trial on damages against Circus Circus only. The court denied the motion, and Young appeals.
ISSUES:
Whether the district court abused its discretion by 1) excluding evidence of a subsequent inspection of other elevator handrails, 2) instructing the jury to disregard certain testimony and confusing the jury as to what evidence it could consider on the standard of care, and 3) denying the NRCP 59(a) motion for a new trial.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.