6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. State Engineergreen2 sentences2018Neither the statute nor the regulation reference the majority of votes cast in an election but both resoundingly reference the majority of employees within a bargaining unit. 4 Therefore, as the Board's interpretation to allow for a majority-of-the-votes-cast standard contradicts its own regulation, the Board's interpretation was in error. 5 See United States v. State Engineer, 117 Nev. 585 , 589-90, 27 P.3d 51 , 53 (2001) ("An administrative agency's interpretation of a regulation or statute does not control if an alternative reading is compelled by the plain language of the provision." (alte 2018Neither the statute nor the regulation reference the majority of votes cast in an election but both resoundingly reference the majority of employees within a bargaining unit. 4 Therefore, as the Board's interpretation to allow for a majority-of-the-votes-cast standard contradicts its own regulation, the Board's interpretation was in error. 5 See United States v. State Engineer, 117 Nev. 585 , 589-90, 27 P.3d 51 , 53 (2001) ("An administrative agency's interpretation of a regulation or statute does not control if an alternative reading is compelled by the plain language of the provision." (alte | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Norberto Gomezgreen1 sentence2009See U.S. v. Gomez, 908 F.2d 809, 811 (11th Cir. 1990); see also U.S. v. Long, 301 F.3d 1095, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Way Quoe Longgreen1 sentence2009See U.S. v. Gomez, 908 F.2d 809, 811 (11th Cir. 1990); see also U.S. v. Long, 301 F.3d 1095, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Koza v. Stategreen1 sentence1999The proper interpretation of the requirement is that the seizure of property in plain view is “ ‘presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.’ ” Id. at 255, 681 P.2d at 50 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587 (1980)). | 1 | 1 |
Payton v. New Yorkgreen1 sentence1999The proper interpretation of the requirement is that the seizure of property in plain view is “ ‘presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.’ ” Id. at 255, 681 P.2d at 50 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587 (1980)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences1971The majority opinion sustaining the respondents' position is primarily based upon the majority's interpretation of the rule announced in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). 1971The majority opinion sustaining the respondents' position is primarily based upon the majority's interpretation of the rule announced in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.