explaining that an employer can 10 terminate an at-will employee “whenever and for whatever cause” without giving rise to 11 liability on the part of the employer, unless the employee establishes “outrageous conduct that 12 violates public policy”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that an employer can 10 terminate an at-will employee “whenever and for whatever cause” without giving rise to 11 liability on the part of the employer, unless the employee establishes “outrageous conduct that 12 violates public policy”
- finding that a writ petition filed less than four months after district court denied the underlying motion did not present inexcusable delay and therefore was not subject to the doctrine of laches
- observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss except when "(1
- acknowledging that writ relief is subject to the doctrine of laches and setting forth questions a court must consider in determining whether laches applies, including whether the delay was inexcusable
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Shearing, J.,
dissenting:
I would deny the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court order denying the State’s motion to dismiss. While I do not necessarily disagree with the law cited by the majority, I do not agree that the district court manifestly abused its discretion or exercised it arbitrarily or capriciously. 1 This court was correct in State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Thompson when it determined that it is not in the best interests of Nevada’s judicial system for this court to entertain writ petitions challenging district court denials of motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. 2
See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604 , 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (interpreting NRS 34.160).
99 Nev. 358, 361 , 662 P.2d 1338 , 1340 (1983).