5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 16 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from COTE H. v. Dist. Ct..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | COTE H. v. Dist. Ct. Anchor | green | “even when raised in a writ petition, this court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” | 4 |
| 2 | Labastida v. State | green | “even though nrs 92a.400-.440 use those terms distinctly.2 see labastida v. state, 115 nev. 298, 302-03 , 986 p.2d 443, 446 (1999) (recognizing that a statutes use of two different terms” | 3 |
| 3 | Leven v. Frey | green | “when a statutes language is plain and its meaning clear, the court will apply that plain language.” | 3 |
| 4 | YOUNG VS. NEV. GAMING CONTROL BD. | green | “when a legislature models a statute after a uniform act, but does not adopt particular language, courts conclude the omission was 'deliberate,' or intentionan. 4we are not persuaded by rpis' arguments that this result is absurd or” | 3 |
| 5 | YOUNG VS. NEV. GAMING CONTROL BD. | green | “when a statutes language is plain and its meaning clear, the court will apply that plain language.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.