Featured Practice Areas:

Lewis and Roca offers extensive experience in its litigation and business sections, covering a wide range of disciplines from corporate law to intellectual property through real estate law. Utilizing each, the firm serves a diverse base of clients, including some of the world's largest corporations.

FULL LIST OF SERVICES>

Related Information

Related Services

Key Contacts

Lawrence A. Kasten

Phone 602.262.0228

Fax 602.734.3921
Daniel F. Polsenberg

Phone 702.474.2616

Fax 702.216.6174

Appeals

Obtained a reversal of $1.2 million in damages on behalf of a financial institution in a case regarding a mistaken foreclosure.

Appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court from a jury verdict awarding $33 million for breach of an oral contract regarding the development of land.

Prevailed in a case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Nevada’s “countersignature” statute, NRS 680A.300, where it was successfully argued that the district court did not err in holding that the statute violated the Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution because it discriminated against licensed nonresident insurance agents who were prevented from selling insurance in Nevada.

Obtained a favorable ruling in an appeal that raised an issue of first impression under the Uniform Prudent Investor Act.

Obtained a complete reversal of attorney’s fees under Nevada’s offer of judgment provisions and the district court’s erroneous award of prejudgment interest on punitive damages. Most significantly, however, convinced the supreme court to remand the punitive damages award of 2.5 times the compensatory damages because it was constitutionally excessive under the Bongiovi guideposts despite the statutory limit of 3 times the compensatory award.

Obtained an affirmance of a jury verdict in a defamation action. On appeal, the appellant alleged the jury’s verdict was unsupported by substantial evidence and that attorney misconduct warranted a new trial. Successfully argued that the jury appropriately drew all inferences in favor of the defendants and that plain error review of the alleged un-objected to attorney misconduct did not amount to irreparable and fundamental error warranting a new trial.