green
Positive treatment
Issue: superintendent of public instructionNV ↗
Quoted verbatim 3×
88.0 score
G Cite
cited 16× by 10 distinct cases, 2003–2018↑ Rising ·
…cases presenting real controversies at the time of their institution may become moot by the happening of subsequent events.
at p. 11
✓
Topic ↗
cited 13× by 10 distinct cases, 2016–2021→ Stable ·
…seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights.
✓
Topic ↗
cited 7× by 5 distinct cases, 2013–2020↑ Rising ·
…a moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights.
at p. 58
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Law Office Of Daniel S. Simon v. Dist. Ct. (Edgeworth Family Tr.)
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
a moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or we denied real parties in interest's petition for rehearing on october 31, 2022. supreme court of nevada rr 21 ee rights.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sell v. Diehl C/W 74916
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
cases presenting real controversies at the time of their institution may become moot by the happening of subsequent events.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sell v. Diehl C/W 74916
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
cases presenting real controversies at the time of their institution may become moot by the happening of subsequent events.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pro Petroleum, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Larsen)
Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720 , 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: A.C.
(3×)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58, 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pamplin (John) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
(3×)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n. v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58, 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barrick Gold Corp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc.)
A case is moot if it "seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis (Arleo) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
A case is moot if it "seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981). "'Cases presenting real controversies at the time of their institution may become moot by the happening of subsequent SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA KO 1947A alEASPID • events.'" Degraw, 134 Nev. at 332, 419 P.3d at 139 (quoting NCAA, 97 Nev. at 58 , 624 P.2d 11 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
DUONG, M.D. VS. FIELDEN HANSON ISAACS MIYADA ROBISON YEH, LTD
(3×)
NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Phoenix (Robert) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cobra Thermosolar Plants, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Brahma Grp., Inc.)
"A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
VALDEZ-JIMENEZ (JOSE) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) C/W 76845
(6×)
That general rule comports with our duty "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
VALDEZ-JIMENEZ (JOSE) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) C/W 76845
(2×)
That general rule comports with our duty "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (Mum)
"A moot case is one which seeks to SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10) 1947A determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilder (Darrin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720 , 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
DEGRAW VS. DIST. CT. (DEGRAW)
(5×)
This court's duty is "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
DEGRAW VS. DIST. CT. (DEGRAW)
(5×)
This court's duty is "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. Harrison (Child Custody)
"A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
KING, P.E. VS. ST. CLAIR
(3×)
Given that the temporary application expired on June 10, 2017, this issue is moot, and we decline to address it. 4 See Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KING, P.E. VS. ST. CLAIR
Given that the temporary application expired on June 10, 2017, this issue is moot, and we decline to address it. 4 See Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Church v. Washoe Cty.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 7A 2 Our duty "is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CO. VS. WEST EDNA ASSOC. C/W 65819/66452
NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CO. VS. WEST EDNA ASSOC. C/W 65819/66452
NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CO. VS. WEST EDNA ASSOC. C/W 65819/66452
(3×)
NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CO. VS. WEST EDNA ASSOC. C/W 65819/66452
NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ (LAZARO) VS. STATE
(3×)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ (LAZARO) VS. STATE
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bd. of Trustees of the Clark Cnty. School Dist. v. Brocade Commc'n. Sys., Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A , ne Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE VS. DIST. CT. (AYDEN A., A MINOR)
(5×)
NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A "A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
NEWMAN (LINDSIE) VS. STATE C/W 67756
(3×)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE VS. DIST. CT. (AYDEN A., A MINOR)
NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A "A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights." NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
NEWMAN (LINDSIE) VS. STATE C/W 67756
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
NEWMAN (LINDSIE) VS. STATE C/W 67756
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Newman v. State
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boyer v. Newman (Child Custody)
Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720 , SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 404. 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981)), A case that initially presents a live controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Discipline of Serota
Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment); NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981) (duty of judicial tribunal is to decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be carried into effect, not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions or to declare principles of law that cannot affect the matter at issue).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Discipline of Serota
Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602 , 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (court’s duty is not to render advisory opinions but to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment); NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981) (duty of judicial tribunal is to decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be carried into effect, not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions or to declare principles of law that cannot affect the matter at issue).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Discipline of Serota
Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. , , 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment); NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981) (duty of judicial tribunal is to decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be carried into effect, not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions or to declare principles of law that cannot affect the matter at issue).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
In Nevada, “[a] moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights.” NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Discipline of Ronald Serota
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010); NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Discipline of Ronald Serota
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010); NCAA University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Discipline of Ronald Serota
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010); NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Majuba Mining, Ltd. v. Pumpkin Copper, Inc.
We have a duty to “decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before [us].” NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FGA, INC. v. Giglio
FGA urges this court to follow the lead of Connecticut courts, which have held that the general verdict rule does not apply where a party raises overlapping factual theories in support of one single claim. 4 This court has a duty “ ‘to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it.’ ” University Sys. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov’t, 120 Nev. 712, 720 , 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. University of …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol
NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57 , 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
University & Community College System v. Nevadans for Sound Government
Const, art. 19, § 1(2) (providing that a referendum signed by registered voters equaling ten percent or more of the number of voters who voted at the preceding general election must be submitted for a vote when filed with the Secretary of State no later than 120 days before the next general election); id. §§ 2(2), (4) (essentially providing that an initiative proposing a constitutional amendment and signed by registered voters equaling ten percent or more of the voters who voted at the preceding general election in seventy-five percent of the counties and the entire state must be filed with…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jason S. v. Valley Hospital Medical Center
NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Governor v. Nevada State Legislature
(2×)
Const. art. 11, § 1 ("The legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, literary, scientific, mining, mechanical, agricultural, and moral improvements, and also provide for a superintendent of public instruction and by law prescribe the manner of appointment, term of office and the duties thereof."); id. art. 11, § 2 ("The legislature shall provide for a uniform system of common schools, by which a school shall be established and maintained in each school district at least six months in every year ... and the legislature may pass such laws as will tend to s…
discussed
Cited "see"
Law Office Of Daniel S. Simon v. Dist. Ct. (Edgeworth Family Tr.)
(2×)
See Nat'l CollegiateAthletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58 , 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981) CA moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or 'We denied real parties in interest's petition for rehearing on October 31., 2022.
cited
Cited "see"
Duong-Ma Vs. Bt Supplies West, Inc.
See NCAA v. Univ. of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56 , 624 P,2d 10 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WEST COAST ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, Appellants,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, and EDGAR JONES, Respondents
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, and EDGAR JONES, Respondents
12303.
Nevada Supreme Court.
Feb 24, 1981.
Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Thurlo and Clarke, and James H. McClarney, Kansas City; and Wiener, Gold water & Waldman, Las Vegas, for Appellants., Larry D. Lessley, Reno; and Fahrenkopf, Mortimer, Sour-wine, Mousel & Sloane, Reno, for Respondents.
Gunderson, Manoukian, Batjer, Mow-Bray, Young.
Cited by 62 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Nevada Supreme Court (3)
OPINION
Per Curiam:Pursuant to directions from the appellant National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Committee on Infractions, the respondent University of Nevada declared respondent Edgar Jones ineligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics. Consequently, in October of 1976, respondent Jones commenced an action challenging the University’s action and, following a hearing, the court below entered a preliminary injunction in Jones’ favor. Pending trial, pursuant to the injuction, Jones continued to play basketball as a member of the University’s varsity team.
Several months after respondent Jones commenced his action, the appellant NCAA and appellant West Coast Athletic Conference sought and obtained leave to intervene as defendants; however, neither appellant alleged any counter-claims or cross-claims. By the time the case was brought on for trial, in August of 1979, respondent Jones had played out his athletic eligibility and had graduated from the University. Accordingly, based on these intervening events, the district court determined that Jones’ two claims for relief had become moot. Rather than proceeding to trial, the court therefore dismissed the action. This appeal follows.
1. Of course, the duty of every judicial tribunal is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it. Miller v. West, 88 Nev. 105, 110, 493 P.2d 1332 (1972); Morrow v. Morrow, 62[*58] Nev. 492, 497, 156 P.2d 827 (1945); City of Reno v. District Court, 58 Nev. 325, 328, 78 P.2d 101 (1938).
This court has frequently refused to determine questions presented in purely moot cases. See, e.g., Pac. L. Co. v. Mason Val. M. Co., 39 Nev. 105, 153 P. 431 (1915). Cases presenting real controversies at the time of their institution may become moot by the happening of subsequent events. Wedekind v. Bell, 26 Nev. 395, 413-15, 69 P. 612 (1902); Pac. L. Co., cited above. A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights. Id.
2. Appellants contend that the instant matter is not moot because its fact situation is one “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” [1] The district court determined, however, and we concur that “the present controversy is not likely to often recur where the result avoids review or trial on the merits.”
Other assigned errors need not be considered.
Affirmed.
Gunderson, C. J., and Manoukian, Batjer, and Mow-bray, JJ., and Young, D. J., [2] concur.
1
This court has not explicitly recognized a “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to our mootness doctrine. But see Cirac v. Lander, 95 Nev. 723, 734, 602 P.2d 1012 (1979).