8 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milkogreen2 sentences2022In doing so, “we evaluate the agency’s decision for clear error or an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.” Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 124 Nev. 355, 362 , 184 P.3d 378, 383 (2008). 2022In doing so, “we evaluate the agency’s decision for clear error or an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.” Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 124 Nev. 355, 362 , 184 P.3d 378, 383 (2008). | 4 | 4 |
Elizondo v. Hood Machine, Inc.green2 sentences2020In reviewing the appeals officer's decision, this court applies the same standard as the district court, Elizondo v. Hood Mach., Inc., 129 Nev. 'Pursuant to NRAP 34(0(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted. 780, 784, 312 P.3d 479, 482 (2013) (explaining that this court reviews an agency's decision for clear error or an abuse of discretion), and is confined to the record before the administrative agency, NRS 233B.135(1)(b). 2019Elizondo v. Hood Mach., Inc., 129 Nev. 780 , 784, 312 P.3d 479 , 482 (2013). | 3 | 4 |
ASSOC. RISK MGMT., INC. VS. IBANEZgreen2 sentences2022This court is confined to the record and cannot "reweigh the evidence or revisit an appeals officer's credibility determination." Associated Risk Mgrnt., Inc. v. Ibanez, 136 Nev. 762, 764, 478 P.3d 372, 374 (2020) (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, 126 Nev. 567, 571, 245 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2010)) (further internal quotation marks omitted). 2022This court is confined to the record and cannot “reweigh the evidence or revisit an appeals officer’s credibility determination.” Associated Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Ibanez, 136 Nev. 762 , 764, 478 P.3d 372, 374 (2020) (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, 126 Nev. 567, 571 , 245 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2010)) (further internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
City of Las Vegas v. Lawsongreen2 sentences2022This court is confined to the record and cannot “reweigh the evidence or revisit an appeals officer’s credibility determination.” Associated Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Ibanez, 136 Nev. 762 , 764, 478 P.3d 372, 374 (2020) (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, 126 Nev. 567, 571 , 245 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2010)) (further internal quotation marks omitted). 2022This court is confined to the record and cannot “reweigh the evidence or revisit an appeals officer’s credibility determination.” Associated Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Ibanez, 136 Nev. 762 , 764, 478 P.3d 372, 374 (2020) (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, 126 Nev. 567, 571 , 245 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2010)) (further internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Vredenburg Ex Rel. Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMSgreen2 sentences2020"An appeals officer's fact-based conclusions of law are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence." Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 , 188 P.3d 1084, 1087-88 (2008); see also NRS 233B.135(3)(e) (providing that a reviewing court may set aside the agency's decision if it is "[c]learly erroneous in view of . . . substantial evidence on the whole record"). 2020"An appeals officer's fact-based conclusions of law are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence." Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 , 188 P.3d 1084, 1087-88 (2008); see also NRS 233B.135(3)(e) (providing that a reviewing court may set aside the agency's decision if it is "[c]learly erroneous in view of . . . substantial evidence on the whole record"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.