24 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State, Bus. & Indus. v. Granite Constr. Co.green2 sentences2019"However, if a statute is susceptible to more than one natural or honest interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the plain meaning rule has no application." State, Dep't of Bus. & Indus., Office of Labor Comm'r v. Granite Const. Co., 118 Nev. 83, 87 , 40 P.3d 423, 426 (2002). 2019"However, if a statute is susceptible to more than one natural or honest interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the plain meaning rule has no application." State, Dep't of Bus. & Indus., Office of Labor Comm'r v. Granite Const. Co., 118 Nev. 83, 87 , 40 P.3d 423, 426 (2002). | 8 | 8 |
State, Department of Motor Vehicles v. Vezerisgreen2 sentences2019In such a circumstance, it is this court's "duty to construe that statute in line with what reason and public policy would indicate the legislature intended." State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Vezeris, 102 Nev. 232, 236 , 720 P.2d 1208, 1211 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2019In such a circumstance, it is this court's "duty to construe that statute in line with what reason and public policy would indicate the legislature intended." State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Vezeris, 102 Nev. 232, 236 , 720 P.2d 1208, 1211 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Savage v. Piersongreen2 sentences2015"If, however, a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the plain meaning rule does not apply." Savage v. Pierson, 123 Nev. 86, 89 , 157 P.3d 697, 699 (2007). 2015"If, however, a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the plain meaning rule does not apply." Savage v. Pierson, 123 Nev. 86, 89 , 157 P.3d 697, 699 (2007). | 2 | 4 |
McKay v. Board of Sup'rs of Carson Citygreen2 sentences2004McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors, 102 Nev. 644, 648 , 730 P.2d 438, 441 (1986); see Trustees v. Developers Surety, 120 Nev. 56, 61 , 84 P.3d 59, 62 (2004) (applying the plain meaning rule of statutory construction to NRCP 68). 2004McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors, 102 Nev. 644, 648 , 730 P.2d 438, 441 (1986); see Trustees v. Developers Surety, 120 Nev. 56, 61 , 84 P.3d 59, 62 (2004) (applying the plain meaning rule of statutory construction to NRCP 68). | 2 | 4 |
Converse Professional Group v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clarkgreen2 sentences2019Co., 118 Nev. 83. 87, 40 P.3d 423, 426 (2002). "[W]hen a statute is ambiguous, we consult other sources, such as legislative history, reason, and policy to identify and give effect to the Legislature's intent." In re CityCenter Constr. & Lien Master Litig., 129 Nev. 669, 673-74, 310 P.3d 574, 578 (2013). 2019Co., 118 Nev. 83. 87, 40 P.3d 423, 426 (2002). "[W]hen a statute is ambiguous, we consult other sources, such as legislative history, reason, and policy to identify and give effect to the Legislature's intent." In re CityCenter Constr. & Lien Master Litig., 129 Nev. 669, 673-74, 310 P.3d 574, 578 (2013). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cataniogreen2 sentences2016See id. 2016See id. | 2 | 2 |
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.green2 sentences2015"The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined [not only] by reference to the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. „ 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1081-82 (2015) (alterations in original) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). 2015"The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined [not only] by reference to the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. „ 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1081-82 (2015) (alterations in original) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Yates v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015"The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined [not only] by reference to the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. „ 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1081-82 (2015) (alterations in original) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). 2015"The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined [not only] by reference to the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. „ 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1081-82 (2015) (alterations in original) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union v. State Ex Rel. Nevada Gaming Control Boardgreen2 sentences2000See Hotel Employees v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 103 Nev. 588, 591 , 747 P.2d 878, 880 (1987). 2000See Hotel Employees v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 103 Nev. 588, 591 , 747 P.2d 878, 880 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
PEOPLE EX REL. ANGLE v. Millergreen1 sentence2012We the People Nevada v. Secretary of State, 124 Nev. 874, 881 , 192 P.3d 1166, 1170-71 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Local 525 Health & Welfare Trust Plan v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2004McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors, 102 Nev. 644, 648 , 730 P.2d 438, 441 (1986); see Trustees v. Developers Surety, 120 Nev. 56, 61 , 84 P.3d 59, 62 (2004) (applying the plain meaning rule of statutory construction to NRCP 68). 2004McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors, 102 Nev. 644, 648 , 730 P.2d 438, 441 (1986); see Trustees v. Developers Surety, 120 Nev. 56, 61 , 84 P.3d 59, 62 (2004) (applying the plain meaning rule of statutory construction to NRCP 68). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Walters' Estategreen2 sentences1998Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 503 , 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990) (quoting In re Walters' Estate, 60 Nev. 172, 183-84 , 104 P.2d 968, 973 (1940)), it is equally true that when more than one interpretation of a statute can reasonably be drawn from its language, it is ambiguous and the plain meaning rule has no application. 1998Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 503 , 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990) (quoting In re Walters' Estate, 60 Nev. 172, 183-84 , 104 P.2d 968, 973 (1940)), it is equally true that when more than one interpretation of a statute can reasonably be drawn from its language, it is ambiguous and the plain meaning rule has no application. | 1 | 1 |
Charlie Brown Construction Co. v. City of Boulder Citygreen2 sentences1998Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 503 , 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990) (quoting In re Walters' Estate, 60 Nev. 172, 183-84 , 104 P.2d 968, 973 (1940)), it is equally true that when more than one interpretation of a statute can reasonably be drawn from its language, it is ambiguous and the plain meaning rule has no application. 1998Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 503 , 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990) (quoting In re Walters' Estate, 60 Nev. 172, 183-84 , 104 P.2d 968, 973 (1940)), it is equally true that when more than one interpretation of a statute can reasonably be drawn from its language, it is ambiguous and the plain meaning rule has no application. | 1 | 1 |
Robert E. v. JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TP.green2 sentences1988When a statute is ambiguous, “the plain meaning rule has no application,” McKay, 102 Nev. at 649 , 730 P.2d at 442 , and the statute can be construed “ ‘in line with what reason and public policy would indicate the legislature intended.’ ” McKay, 102 Nev. at 649 , 730 P.2d at 442 (quoting Robert E. v. Justice Court, 99 Nev. 443, 445 , 664 P.2d 957, 959 (1983)). 1988When a statute is ambiguous, “the plain meaning rule has no application,” McKay, 102 Nev. at 649 , 730 P.2d at 442 , and the statute can be construed “ ‘in line with what reason and public policy would indicate the legislature intended.’ ” McKay, 102 Nev. at 649 , 730 P.2d at 442 (quoting Robert E. v. Justice Court, 99 Nev. 443, 445 , 664 P.2d 957, 959 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
green
2 sentences2015"However, when a statute is susceptible to more than one natural or honest interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the plain meaning rule has no application." Id. (internal citations omitted). 2015"However, when a statute is susceptible to more than one natural or honest interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the plain meaning rule has no application." Id. (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
We The People Nevada ex rel. Angle v. Miller
green
1 sentence2012We the People Nevada v. Secretary of State, 124 Nev. 874, 881 , 192 P.3d 1166, 1170-71 (2008). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Thompson v. First Judicial District Court
green
1 sentence1986Thompson v. District Court, supra, 100 Nev. at 354 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.