From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardy v. Chromy

Supreme Court of Nevada.
Dec 20, 2010
126 Nev. 718 (Nev. 2010)

Summary

considering temporal proximity the deciding factor in a tortious discharge claim

Summary of this case from Archuleta v. Corr. Corp. of Am.

Opinion

No. 53956.

12-20-2010

Brennen HARDY, Appellant, v. Karen CHROMY, an individual; John Sienko, an individual; Donna Davis, an individual; State of Nevada, ex rel. its Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Mental Health; Carlos Brandenberg, an individual; and Harold Cook, an individual, Respondents.

Jeffrey A. Dickerson Attorney General/Carson City


DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hardy v. Chromy

Supreme Court of Nevada.
Dec 20, 2010
126 Nev. 718 (Nev. 2010)

considering temporal proximity the deciding factor in a tortious discharge claim

Summary of this case from Archuleta v. Corr. Corp. of Am.
Case details for

Hardy v. Chromy

Case Details

Full title:Brennen HARDY, Appellant, v. Karen CHROMY, an individual; John Sienko, an…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada.

Date published: Dec 20, 2010

Citations

126 Nev. 718 (Nev. 2010)
367 P.3d 777

Citing Cases

Ulloa v. Nev. Gold Mines, LLC

Courts have held that a three-month period and a four-month period were too far apart in temporal proximity…

Sproul v. Washoe Barton Med. Clinic

The Nevada Supreme Court adopted this reasoning in an unreported workers compensation retaliation case. See…