# Sahara Gaming Corp. v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226

> Nevada Supreme Court · August 27, 1999 · 115 Nev. 212

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793122

## Case

- **Full name:** SAHARA GAMING CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation, and SAHARA MISSION VALLEY, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Appellants, v. CULINARY WORKERS UNION LOCAL 226, Affiliated With HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO; And HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO, Respondents
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 27, 1999
- **Citations:** 115 Nev. 212; 984 P.2d 164; 1999 Nev. LEXIS 50
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Becker
- **Judges:** Leavitt, Shearing, Rose, Becker, Sullivan, Agosti, Young
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793122

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, because the “alleged defamatory statements were a fair and accurate report of 16 a judicial proceeding, they are absolutely privileged, and the material recited will not support a defamation suit even if the statements were made maliciously and with knowledge of …
- affirming the dismissal of a civil conspiracy claim when the underlying cause of action was barred by the fair report privilege

## Opinion text

Becker, J.,
concurring:
I concur with the decision of the majority to affirm the order granting summary judgment because I do not believe the Union had actual knowledge that the statements made in the Mississippi action were false. The pleadings and affidavits do not establish a “genuine issue of material fact,” nor do they demonstrate that additional discovery is likely to produce such evidence.
I disagree with the majority’s holding that the fair reporting privilege should be absolute and unconditional. I believe the privilege should be conditional as to the general public and absolute when applied to the press. If an individual has actual knowledge that information contained in a legal pleading is false and then reports that information with the intent to harm another, then such a person should be subject to an action in defamation.
Under the majority’s analysis, it is now permissible for individuals to file lawsuits containing false statements, arrange for the republication of those statements under the fair reporting privilege, and avoid the consequences of a defamation action.
I agree with Justice Shearing that the privilege should be absolute for representatives of the press. If a conditional privilege applied to members of the news media, they would be subject to *225 the cost and expense of defending a lawsuit until it was clear that the plaintiff could not prove that the press had actual knowledge that the information contained in the judicial proceeding was false. This is too great a burden to place upon the members of the fourth estate. The benefit gained by having the press report upon judicial proceedings outweighs the harm that could result from one reporter abusing the privilege for profit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793122. Public record. Not legal advice.