Skip to content

Nevada Law Blog

Jay Young | Top Las Vegas Mediator, Arbitrator & Special Master

  • Home
  • Jay Young ADR Services
  • Nevada Mediation Resources
  • Nevada Arbitration Resources
  • Special Master Resources
  • Books by Jay Young
  • Nevada Litigation Resources
  • Nevada Causes of Action
  • Discovery Digest
  • Toggle search form

Month: May 2015

The Elements for the Claim of Breach of the Covenant Not to Compete

Posted on May 28, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on The Elements for the Claim of Breach of the Covenant Not to Compete

Generally, a Covenant Not to Compete is “[a]n agreement, generally part of a contract of employment or a contract to sell a business, in which the covenantor agrees for a specific period of time and within a particular area to refrain from competition with the covenantee.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 364 (6th ed. 1990).   The Covenant Not to Compete is known by multiple other names: the “restrictive covenant,” “non-competition agreement,” or as an “agreement not to compete” (hereinafter the “Covenant”).  Griffin Toronjo Pivateau, Putting the Blue Pencil Down: An Argument for Specificity in Noncompete Agreements, 86 Neb. L. Rev. 672, 675 (2008).

Read More “The Elements for the Claim of Breach of the Covenant Not to Compete” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Employment Law, Franchise Law, Intellectual Property, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Does Your Business Comply With Nevada’s Workplace Safety Program Laws?

Posted on May 26, 2015 By Jay Young No Comments on Does Your Business Comply With Nevada’s Workplace Safety Program Laws?
Does Your Business Comply With Nevada’s Workplace Safety Program Laws?
Does Your Business Comply With Nevada’s Workplace Safety Program Laws?

Does your company have a Written Safety Program?

Did you know that a Written Safety Program is required by law?  Every employer in Nevada which has 11 or more employees or which manufactures explosives is required to have a written Safety Program.

Your Written Safety Program (“WSP”) must include:

  • A training program for employees, targeting areas of specific concern or where there have been recurring injuries;
  • If you have more than 25 employees, or manufacture explosives, you must have a safety committee which includes an employee representative.  Your employee representative on the safety committee must be paid “as if that employee were engaged in the employee’s usual work activities” for time spent on the committee;
  • The WSP manual and training must be available in a language and format that is understandable to each of your employees;
  • A statement explaining that the managers, supervisors, and employees are responsible for carrying out the program;
  • An explanation of the methods used to identify, analyze, and control new and existing hazardous conditions; and
  • A method for ensuring that employees comply with the safety rules and work practices.

Read More “Does Your Business Comply With Nevada’s Workplace Safety Program Laws?” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Employment Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

FAQ: What You Should Know About Selling Your Business

Posted on May 26, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on FAQ: What You Should Know About Selling Your Business
FAQ: What You Should Know About Selling Your Business
FAQ: What You Should Know About Selling Your Business

Why are you building a business?

In addition to providing yourself employment together with the flexibility, control and responsibility of business ownership, most people build businesses to sell them at a gain in order to retire or to build another business.

How should you document the sale of your business?

There are primary two ways to sell your business. You can sell the assets or you can sell the equity (typically stock, LLC membership interests, or partnership interests).   These are documented quite differently and can have completely different tax benefits to the parties.  Additionally, a question that needs resolved is whether continuing liabilities of the business remain with the seller or become the obligation of buyer (typically documented by an indemnity from seller).

Read More “FAQ: What You Should Know About Selling Your Business” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Corporate Governance, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

Stricter Requirements for Objections to Discovery Requests Under Federal Rules of Civil Litigation

Posted on May 22, 2015 By Jay Young No Comments on Stricter Requirements for Objections to Discovery Requests Under Federal Rules of Civil Litigation

Under the most recent version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party objecting to a request for production of documents may not rely on the hackneyed objection that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  Under the new standard, the threshold question is whether a request…

Read More “Stricter Requirements for Objections to Discovery Requests Under Federal Rules of Civil Litigation” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
J

Trademarks & Copyrights – An Intellectual Property Primer

Posted on May 19, 2015 By Jay Young No Comments on Trademarks & Copyrights – An Intellectual Property Primer

Trademarks & Copyrights – An Intellectual Property Primer
Trademarks & Copyrights – An Intellectual Property Primer

Trademark Defined

A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used to distinguish one’s goods from others’ goods.  A service mark is a mark that is used in the marketing of services rather than goods. The processes for protecting trademarks and service marks are the same, so for simplicity, we will use the term “mark”.

Marks can be protected in three ways: common law use, federal registration, and state registration.  You do not have to register a mark under the common law; rights in a mark can be established by proof of legitimate use of the mark. However, only limited protection is provided under the common law.

Read More “Trademarks & Copyrights – An Intellectual Property Primer” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Intellectual Property, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Tort of Outrage)

Posted on May 19, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Tort of Outrage)

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (sometimes called the tort of outrage) are:

  1. Defendant acts with “extreme and outrageous conduct with either the intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress”;
  2. Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and
  3. Defendant’s conduct is the actual or proximate cause of plaintiff’s emotional distress.

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Tort of Outrage)” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Contract Damages in Nevada

Posted on May 14, 2015July 15, 2025 By Jay Young No Comments on Contract Damages in Nevada

The following abstract explains Nevada law on contract damages, and explains how our courts view, determine, and award damages.

EXPECTATION/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

Expectation/Compensation Damages as the General Goal of Contract Damages.

The general goal of contract damages is to provide compensation for the injured party based on the injured party’s expectation interest.  3 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 12.2(1), at 22 (2d ed. 1993); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347cmt. a (2008).  Although there are other remedies available for an injured party in a breach of contract situation, the general and traditional goals of awarding damages in a breach of contract case are aligned with the expectation/compensation remedy. Dobbs, § 12.2(1), at 22.

Read More “Contract Damages in Nevada” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Franchise Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Slander Per Se

Posted on May 9, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Slander Per Se

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of slander per se are: An alleged defamatory oral statement; That the plaintiff committed a crime, has contracted a loathsome disease, that a woman is unchaste, or an allegation must be one which would tend to injure the plaintiff or his trade, business, profession, or office; and Proximate…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Slander Per Se” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Should I Sign This Letter of Intent?

Posted on May 5, 2015 By Jay Young No Comments on Should I Sign This Letter of Intent?
Should I Sign This Letter of Intent?
Should I Sign This Letter of Intent?

What is a Letter of Intent?

Letters of Intent (“LOI”) can be very useful in setting forth the basic deal points of a transaction, but if they are construed as binding, the parties may get more (or less) than they bargained for.   Surprisingly, it may not be enough to say only once in a LOI that it is not a binding agreement.

In the famous case of Pennzoil v. Texaco, 729 S.W. 2d 768 (1987), the Texas court held that the LOI in that case contained enough terms that the billion plus dollar deal was enforced despite the fact that the LOI specifically said it was non-binding.  The parties were bound to their short form term sheet instead of a deal that contained bargained for and terms with all of the I’s dotted and T’s crossed.

Read More “Should I Sign This Letter of Intent?” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Corporate Governance, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

Contract Construction and Interpretation by Courts

Posted on May 1, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Contract Construction and Interpretation by Courts

The following abstract explains contract construction rules and how they are interpreted by Nevada courts.

AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT

  • If contract is ambiguous, then it will be construed against drafter. Dickinson v. State, Dept. of Wildlife, 110 Nev. 934, 877 P.2d 1059 (1994);
  • Any ambiguity in insurance contract must be interpreted against drafting party and in favor of insured. Farmers Ins. Grp. v. Stonik, 110 Nev. 64, 867 P.2d 389 (1994);
  • Where two interpretations of contract are possible, court will prefer interpretation which gives meaning to both provisions rather than interpretation which renders one of the provisions meaningless. Quirrion v. Sherman, 109 Nev. 62, 846 P.2d 1051 (1993);
  • Court may look to circumstances surrounding execution of contract and subsequent acts or declarations of parties to interpret unclear contract provisions. Trans Western Leasing Corp. v. Corrao Constr. Co., Inc., 98 Nev. 445, 652 P.2d 1181 (1982);
  • In construing ambiguous contract, court should place itself as nearly as possible in situation of parties. Barringer v. Gunderson, 81 Nev. 288, 402 P.2d 470 (1965);
  • The rule that the construction given to a contract by parties should carry great weight applies only to ambiguous contracts and not to contracts which are clear, certain and definite in their terms. Woods v. Bromley, 69 Nev. 96, 241 P.2d 1103 (1952);
  • Where language used in contract is equivocal or ambiguous, subsequent acts or declarations of parties showing practical construction put upon words may be resorted to for purpose of ascertaining their intention. Woods v. Bromley, 69 Nev. 96, 241 P.2d 1103 (1952).

Read More “Contract Construction and Interpretation by Courts” »

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
Business Law, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation
Disclaimer
Contact Us
  • Advanced Resolution Management

Visitor

3262519

Trending Posts

Archives

  •  2025
    • Nov 2025
    • Oct 2025
    • Sep 2025
    • Aug 2025
    • Jul 2025
    • Feb 2025
    • Jan 2025
  •  2024
    • Dec 2024
    • Nov 2024
    • Oct 2024
    • Aug 2024
    • May 2024
    • Mar 2024
    • Feb 2024
    • Jan 2024
  •  2023
    • Dec 2023
  •  2021
    • Mar 2021
    • Feb 2021
    • Jan 2021
  •  2020
    • Dec 2020
    • Nov 2020
    • Oct 2020
    • Sep 2020
    • Aug 2020
    • Jul 2020
    • Jun 2020
    • May 2020
    • Apr 2020
    • Mar 2020
    • Jan 2020
  •  2019
    • Dec 2019
    • Nov 2019
    • Oct 2019
    • Sep 2019
    • Aug 2019
    • Apr 2019
    • Mar 2019
    • Feb 2019
    • Jan 2019
  •  2018
    • Dec 2018
    • Nov 2018
    • Oct 2018
    • Sep 2018
    • Aug 2018
    • Jul 2018
    • Mar 2018
    • Feb 2018
  •  2017
    • Nov 2017
    • Oct 2017
    • Sep 2017
    • Aug 2017
    • Jul 2017
    • Jun 2017
    • May 2017
    • Apr 2017
    • Mar 2017
    • Feb 2017
  •  2016
    • Sep 2016
    • Aug 2016
    • Jul 2016
    • Jun 2016
    • May 2016
    • Apr 2016
    • Mar 2016
    • Feb 2016
    • Jan 2016
  •  2015
    • Dec 2015
    • Nov 2015
    • Oct 2015
    • Sep 2015
    • Aug 2015
    • Jul 2015
    • Jun 2015
    • May 2015
    • Apr 2015
    • Mar 2015
    • Feb 2015
  •  2013
    • Jul 2013

Copyright © 2025 Nevada Law Blog.

Powered by PressBook WordPress theme

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d