Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1952–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc. v. Nevada State Labor Commissiongreen2 sentences2025State Labor Comm'n, 117 Nev. 835, 841 , 34 P.3d 546, 550 (2001) ("The fact that the two phrases . . . are separated by a comma and the word 'or' indicates that the [second] phrase .. is in the alternative to, and is not conditioned by, the preceding clause."); see also Scalia & Garner, Reading Law, supra, at 150 (explaining that where items in a list are separated by commas, and a modifier phrase is not set off from the final item by a cornrna, the modifier only applies to the final item). 2025State Labor Comm'n, 117 Nev. 835, 841 , 34 P.3d 546, 550 (2001) ("The fact that the two phrases . . . are separated by a comma and the word 'or' indicates that the [second] phrase .. is in the alternative to, and is not conditioned by, the preceding clause."); see also Scalia & Garner, Reading Law, supra, at 150 (explaining that where items in a list are separated by commas, and a modifier phrase is not set off from the final item by a cornrna, the modifier only applies to the final item). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of the Petition of Sellinggreen2 sentences1988This provision of our rules is derived from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 50-51 (1917). 1988This provision of our rules is derived from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 50-51 , 37 S.Ct. 377, 378-79 , 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Delaware Coach Co.green1 sentence1975Interested parties who are or may *821 be directly and substantially affected by the proceeding may enter an appearance, introduce evidence and, subject to the discretion of the Commission, may otherwise participate in the conduct of the proceeding.” Under statutory language almost identical to the Nevada statute, a Delaware court held in Smith v. Delaware Coach Co., 70 A.2d 257, 260 (Del.App. 1949): “It is apparent from these provisions that no order changing the rates can be made by the Public Service Commission on its own initiative without a ‘hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Harris
green
2 sentences1991Under the preceding analysis, the Court held, that “where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of [Payton].” New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. at 21 , 110 S.Ct. at 1644 . 1991Under the preceding analysis, the Court held, that "where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State's use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of [ Payton ]." New York v. Harris, ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at 1644 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Moore v. Humboldt County
green
2 sentences1957An amendment to the constitution, proposed by a majority of both houses of the legislature, referred to the next succeeding legislature and agreed to by a majority of that legislature, is thereafter submitted to a vote of the people, and if approved by a majority of the electors “such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution”. 2 The majority opinion held that the proviso prohibiting a change of salary during the term referred only to the officers named in the preceding clause, namely, those whose salary “is fixed in this constitution”. 3 Referring to Moore v. Humboldt Co 1957An amendment to the constitution, proposed by a majority of both houses of the legislature, referred to the next succeeding legislature and agreed to by a majority of that legislature, is thereafter submitted to a vote of the people, and if approved by a majority of the electors “such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution”. 2 The majority opinion held that the proviso prohibiting a change of salary during the term referred only to the officers named in the preceding clause, namely, those whose salary “is fixed in this constitution”. 3 Referring to Moore v. Humboldt Co | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State ex rel. Josephs v. Douglass
green
1 sentence1957Josephs v. Douglass, 33 Nev. 82, 83 , 110 P. 177 , the dissenting opinion notes: “But in those cases the court was dealing more with the power of the legislature to abolish an office than it was with its right to increase or diminish the salary of an officer during the term for which he may have been elected.” | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle
green
2 sentences1952Upon this argument, however, we regard the case of Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 , 49 S.Ct. 204 , 73 L.Ed. 454 (supra, footnote 11), as controlling. 1952Upon this argument, however, we regard the case of Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 , 49 S.Ct. 204 , 73 L.Ed. 454 (supra, footnote 11), as controlling. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.