8 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1914–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Private Investigator's Licensing Board v. Atherleygreen2 sentences2000In Private Investigator’s Licensing Board v. Atherley, 98 Nev. 514, 515 , 654 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1982), this court strictly con *952 strued these requirements and held that because the statutes controlling the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board did not require “notice and an opportunity for hearing” before the Board made application determinations, the Board’s decisions were not “contested cases” for purposes of the APA. 2000In Private Investigator’s Licensing Board v. Atherley, 98 Nev. 514, 515 , 654 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1982), this court strictly con *952 strued these requirements and held that because the statutes controlling the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board did not require “notice and an opportunity for hearing” before the Board made application determinations, the Board’s decisions were not “contested cases” for purposes of the APA. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hillis v. State
green
2 sentences2011The Hillis court held that the procuring agent defense is applicable to a trafficking charge that is based on a theory of possession if the facts reveal that the “possession was clearly incidental to a contemplated sales transaction.” 103 Nev. at 535 , 746 P.2d at 1095 . 2011The Hillis court held that the procuring agent defense is applicable to a trafficking charge that is based on a theory of possession if the facts reveal that the “possession was clearly incidental to a contemplated sales transaction.” 103 Nev. at 535 , 746 P.2d at 1095 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Buckley v. State
green
2 sentences2011Although this court implicitly recognized this conceptual limitation on the procuring agent defense with the holding in Buckley, *606 95 Nev. at 604 , 600 P.2d at 228 , that “the agency defense is inapplicable to the crime of possession,” no mention was made of that limitation or Buckley when this court first considered whether the procuring agent defense applies to a charge of trafficking in a controlled substance in Hillis . 2011Although this court implicitly recognized this conceptual limitation on the procuring agent defense with the holding in Buckley, *606 95 Nev. at 604 , 600 P.2d at 228 , that “the agency defense is inapplicable to the crime of possession,” no mention was made of that limitation or Buckley when this court first considered whether the procuring agent defense applies to a charge of trafficking in a controlled substance in Hillis . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Coury v. Whittlesea-Bell Luxury Limousine
green
2 sentences1996Humana-Nevada argues the DOI denied the home office tax credit based on factors listed in an ad hoc regulation, i.e., the questions circulated within the DOI to be used in the investigations. 1 NRS 233B.038 defines a regulation as “an agency rule, standard, directive or statement of general applicability which effectuates or interprets law or policy, or describes the organization, procedure or practice requirements of any agency.” Humana-Nevada relies on Coury v. Whittlesea-Bell, 102 Nev. 302 , 721 P.2d 375 (1986), to argue that the DOI’s criteria was an ad hoc regulation. 1996Humana-Nevada argues the DOI denied the home office tax credit based on factors listed in an ad hoc regulation, i.e., the questions circulated within the DOI to be used in the investigations. 1 NRS 233B.038 defines a regulation as “an agency rule, standard, directive or statement of general applicability which effectuates or interprets law or policy, or describes the organization, procedure or practice requirements of any agency.” Humana-Nevada relies on Coury v. Whittlesea-Bell, 102 Nev. 302 , 721 P.2d 375 (1986), to argue that the DOI’s criteria was an ad hoc regulation. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Matos
neutral
1 sentence1995The court in People v. Arnott, 533 N.Y.S.2d 470 (App. Div. 1988), stated: The agency defense is not an affirmative defense, but rather “may negate the existence of an element of the crime, namely, the sale or the intent to sell. . . [and] [accordingly, the People are required to disprove agency beyond a reasonable doubt.” *550 Id. at 472 (quoting People v. Matos, 506 N.Y.S.2d 225 (App. Div. 1986)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Arnott
green
2 sentences1995The court in People v. Arnott, 533 N.Y.S.2d 470 (App. Div. 1988), stated: The agency defense is not an affirmative defense, but rather “may negate the existence of an element of the crime, namely, the sale or the intent to sell. . . [and] [accordingly, the People are required to disprove agency beyond a reasonable doubt.” *550 Id. at 472 (quoting People v. Matos, 506 N.Y.S.2d 225 (App. Div. 1986)). 1995The court in People v. Arnott, 533 N.Y.S.2d 470 (App. Div. 1988), stated: The agency defense is not an affirmative defense, but rather “may negate the existence of an element of the crime, namely, the sale or the intent to sell. . . [and] [accordingly, the People are required to disprove agency beyond a reasonable doubt.” *550 Id. at 472 (quoting People v. Matos, 506 N.Y.S.2d 225 (App. Div. 1986)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State Ex Rel. Nevada Tax Commission v. Saveway Super Service Stations, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 630 , 668 P.2d at 274 . 1993Id. at 630 , 668 P.2d at 274 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State Board of Equalization v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.
green
1 sentence1985The term includes a proposed regulation and the amendment or repeal of a prior regulation, . . .” See also Public Service Com’n v. Southwest Gas Corp., 99 Nev. 268 , 634 P.2d 461 (1983); State Bd. of Equalization v. Sierra Pac. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Public Service Commission v. Southwest Gas Corp.
green
1 sentence1985The term includes a proposed regulation and the amendment or repeal of a prior regulation, . . .” See also Public Service Com’n v. Southwest Gas Corp., 99 Nev. 268 , 634 P.2d 461 (1983); State Bd. of Equalization v. Sierra Pac. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Sierra
green
1 sentence1979People v. Sierra, 379 N.E.2d 196 (N.Y. 1978). 3. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Slosser v. Salt River Valley Canal Co.
neutral
1 sentence1914The doctrine of agency, therefore, unless we concede to such corporations a right not enjoyed by other inhabitants under the statute, must be invoked, in order to confer upon them any right to the diversion of water from a public stream.” (Slosser v. Salt River Co., 7 Ariz. 376 , 65 Pac. 336 .) It being our judgment that the rule as asserted in the case of Slosser v. Salt River Co., supra, is applicable in this case, it follows that the appellant company can be regarded in no other light than that of the agent for those who, having in years past taken the water from the canal of appellant, hav | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.