How cited: Bailey v. State · Go Syfert

Bailey v. State (1979)

green · 62 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 13 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198020032026
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378 , 594 P.2d 734, 736-39 (1979); State Engineer v. American National Insurance Co., 88 Nev. 424 , 498 P.2d 1329 (1972).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378 , 594 P.2d 734, 736-39 (1979); State Engineer v. American National Insurance Co., 88 Nev. 424 , 498 P.2d 1329 (1972).
Rule Authority · Nev. · 8 citations in this opinion
Res., Div. of Water Res. v. Foley, 121 Nev. 77, 83, 109 P.3d 760, 764 (2005) (stating that "this court [haS] embraced the principle that the district court may grant extraordinary equitable relief [where] the water rights . . . were of record [and] the holders of water rights either exercised diligence in the placement of water to beneficial use or sought relief in response to defects in the cancellation notice); Preferred Equities Corp. v. State Ener. 119 Nev. 384, 389, 75 …
reversing the district court's denial of a permittee's request for equitable relief from the State Engineer's cancellation of its permitted water rights
Rule Authority · Nev. · 4 citations in this opinion
Bailey v. State of Nevada, 95 Nev. 378, 381 , 594 P.2d 734, 736 (1979).
Rule Authority · Nev. · 3 citations in this opinion
Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378, 382 , 594 P.2d 734, 737 (1979).
Rule Authority · Nev.
Additionally, in Bailey v. State of Nevada, a water permit cancellation case, this court expanded the equitable relief granted by the district court, impliedly recognizing our ability also to award equitable relief. 95 Nev. 378, 383 , 594 P.2d 734, 737 (1979).
Rule Authority · Nev.
Co., 88 Nev. at 426 , 498 P.2d at 1330 ; Bailey v. State of Nevada, 95 Nev. 378, 381-82 , 594 P.2d 734, 736 (1979); Engelmann v. Westergard, 98 Nev. 348, 351-52 , 647 P.2d 385, 387-88 (1982). 21 Because we are remanding the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion, we need not address the merits of Blaine’s claim that it is entitled to attorney fees as damages.
Rule Authority · Nev.
DI cites Bailey v. State of Nevada, 95 Nev. 378, 385 , 594 P.2d 734, 739 (1979), for the proposition that the State Engineer must grant PBU time extensions to similarly situated parties when no extenuating circumstances exist.
Rule Authority · Md.
Also see Dow v. State, 396 Mich. 192, 211 , 240 N.W.2d 450, 459 (1976) (Mailed notice directed to address “reasonably calculated to reach the person entitled to notice” is sufficient; failure of process to effect actual notice does not preclude foreclosure of statutory lien); Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378, 381 , 594 P.2d 734, 736 (1979) (cancellation of water rights did not deprive owner of property without due process when notice sent by certified mail to correct address, bu…
cancellation of water rights did not deprive owner of property without due process when notice sent by certified mail to correct address, but owner did not receive it
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Town of Eureka v. Office of State Eng’r, 108 Nev. 163 , 826 P.2d 948, 951-52 (1992) (holding it appropriate to waive application of a forfeiture statute where the holder of water rights resumed use after the statutory period of non-use), Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378 , 594 P.2d 734, 737-39 (1979) (concluding that an underground water permit-tee who had not timely filed proof of beneficial use was entitled to equitable relief from cancellation of water rights where she had…
concluding that an underground water permit-tee who had not timely filed proof of beneficial use was entitled to equitable relief from cancellation of water rights where she had continuously worked on land during the period in question
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Town of Eureka v. Office of State Eng'r, 108 Nev. 163 , 826 P.2d 948, 951-52 (1992) (holding it appropriate to waive application of a forfeiture statute where the holder of water rights resumed use after the statutory period of non-use), Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378 , 594 P.2d 734, 737-39 (1979) (concluding that an underground water permittee who had not timely filed proof of beneficial use was entitled to equitable relief from cancellation of water rights where she had …
concluding that an underground water permittee who had not timely filed proof of beneficial use was entitled to equitable relief from cancellation of water rights where she had continuously worked on land during the period in question
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Town of Eureka v. Office of the State Eng’r, 108 Nev. 163 , 826 P.2d 948, 951-52 (Nev.1992) (holding it appropriate to waive application of a forfeiture statute where the holder of water rights resumed use after the statutory period of non-use), Bailey v. State, 95 Nev. 378 , 594 P.2d 734, 737-39 (Nev.1979) (concluding that an underground water permittee who had not timely filed proof of beneficial use was entitled to equitable relief from cancellation of water rights wh…
Cited · Nev. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Bailey, 95 Nev. 378 , 594 P.2d 734 ; American Nat’l Ins.