12 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 39 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 Taylor v. State Department of Health & Human Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Taylor v. State Department of Health & Human Services Anchor | green | “when reviewing a district court's denial of a petition for judicial review of an agency decision, this court engages in the same analysis as the district court.” | 5 |
| 2 | Southern Nevada Homebuilders Ass'n v. Clark County | green | “this court must give a statute's terms their plain meaning, considering its provisions as a whole so as to read them in a way that would not render words or phrases superfluous or make a provision nugatory.” | 4 |
| 3 | Taylor v. State Department of Health & Human Services | green | “is within the language of the statute.” | 4 |
| 4 | Kay v. Nunez | green | “this court affords no deference to the district court's ruling in judicial review matters.” | 4 |
| 5 | Holiday Retirement Corp. v. State Division of Industrial Relations | green | “an employer must acquire knowledge of an employee's permanent physical impairment before the subsequent injury occurs to qualify for reimbursement.” | 3 |
| 6 | Holiday Retirement Corp. v. State Division of Industrial Relations | green | “either that the employer (1) had knowledge of the permanent physical impairment at the time the employee was hired or (2) retained its employee after it acquired knowledge of the permanent physical impairment.” | 3 |
| 7 | City of Reno v. Reno Police Protective Ass'n | green | “if the administrative agency's decision lacks substantial evidentiary support, the decision is unsustainable as being arbitrary or capricious.” | 3 |
| 8 | Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, Second Injury Fund | green | “could reasonably be due to one of the conditions recognized by statute, even if the employer cannot precisely identify the specific medical condition.” | 3 |
| 9 | Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, Second Injury Fund | green | “the written record does not need to contain the exact medical terminology describing the condition” | 3 |
| 10 | O'Keefe v. State | green | “suggest that the hearing officer decides de novo whether the employee's termination serves the good of the public service” | 3 |
| 11 | O'Keefe v. State | green | “whether the employee in fact committed the charged violation.” | 3 |
| 12 | Southern Nevada Homebuilders Ass'n v. Clark County | green | “its terms their plain meaning, considering its provisions as a whole so as to read them in a way that would not render words or phrases superfluous or make a provision nugatory.” | 1 |
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.