Who Counts as a Jew?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Israel holding that people who have undergone Conservative or Reform conversions in Israel qualify as Jews under the Israeli Law of Return. Professor Colb explains the significance of this decision and explores some of the downsides that remain in the Israeli approach to who counts as a Jew.

Read More

Home Warranty Administrator of Nevada, Inc. v. State, Department of Business & Industry

Citation: 137 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 5

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Ron D. Parraguirre

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for judicial review of an order of the Nevada Division of Insurance, holding that remand was required with the instruction that the district court grant judicial review in part. Choice Home Warranty (CHW) marketed and sold Home Warranty Administrator of Nevada, Inc. (HWAN)'s home warranty service contracts, in which HWAN was the obligor. The Department of Business and Industry, Division of Insurance filed a complaint alleging that HWAN, dba CHW, made false entries by answering no to a question in certificate-of-registration renewal applications, conducted business in an unsuitable manner, and failed to make records available to the Division. A hearing officer found that HWAN committed all of the alleged violations. The district court denied HWAN's petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) under Nev. Rev. Stat. 690C.150, a provider of home warranty services is not simply an entity that issues, sells, or offers for sale service contracts but the obligor in those contracts; (2) CHW was not an obligor so it was not a provider and need not have held a certificate of registration; and (3) HWAN did not act improperly by selling its contracts through an unregistered entity.

Nevada State Education Ass'n v. Clark County Education Ass'n

Citation: 137 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 8

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Stiglich

Areas of Law: Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to a local teachers' union in this union contract dispute, holding that the local union validly terminated the contract and so was not contractually obligated to continue transmitting its members' dues to the state union. The Clark County Education Association (CCEA) was a local union representing teachers and other school district employees. The Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) and the National Education Association (NSA) were its statewide and national affiliates. NSEA and CCEA entered into a contract requiring CCEA to transmit NSEA and NEA dues after receiving them from the school district. In 2017, CCEA notified NSEA that it wanted to terminate the contract and negotiate new terms. No new agreement was forthcoming, but CCEA continued to collect union dues but placed the portion of the NSEA dues in an escrow account pending litigation. CCEA filed an action seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to transmit the money to NSEA. NSEA and NEA filed a separate action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted judgment to CCEA on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that CCEA lacked a contractual obligation to transmit the dues and properly placed them in escrow pending resolution of this dispute.

Sewall v. District Court

Citation: 137 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Cadish

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus sought by Petitioner arguing that the district court was required to grant his release on bail under Nev. Const. art. I, 7, holding that the State's evidence was insufficient to defeat Petitioner's right to reasonable bail. Petitioner was charged by indictment with first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner filed motion to suppress his confession to the murder, which the district court granted. Thereafter, Petitioner moved to set reasonable bail on the basis that the State's proof was not evident, nor was the presumption great, that he committed the crime. The district court denied bail. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to rebut the presumption in favor of bail under Article 1, Section 7 and, therefore, the district court's denial of Petitioner's request for release on reasonable bail was contrary to law.

Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court

Citation: 137 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 6

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: James W. Hardesty

Areas of Law: Drugs & Biotech, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a petition for a writ of mandamus stemming from lawsuits brought against generic drug manufacturers for selling vials of propofol to ambulatory surgical centers despite an allegedly foreseeable risk that they would be used on multiple patients, holding that some of the claims were preempted. Plaintiffs alleged that Petitioners knew or should have known that selling 50 mL vials of propofol, as opposed to 20 mL vials, to ambulatory surgical centers with high patient turnover was unsafe due to the risk of contamination from multi-dosing. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff's claims conflicted with federal law. The district courts summarily denied the motions to dismiss. Petitioners then filed the instant writ petition. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding (1) Plaintiffs' negligence cause of action and request for punitive damages survived; but (2) the remainder of Plaintiffs' causes of action were preempted.

Smith v. Zilverberg

Citation: 137 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 7

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Cadish

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court held that the district court properly determined that the allegedly defamatory statements made by Respondents Kay Zilverberg and Victoria Eagan fell within the protections of Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes and that Appellant Jason Smith did not demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claims. Appellant was a professional thrifter, and Respondents were thrifters. When Respondents criticized Appellant for bullying behavior Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Respondents' statements were false and defamatory. Respondents filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion and awarded Respondents attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly granted the anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss; and (2) Appellant failed to show with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claims.