Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.140
Quorum
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 2.140 Quorum. Four
justices constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, excepting such
business as may be done at chambers or by panels. The concurrence of four
justices who heard the argument is necessary to pronounce a judgment, except in
business done at chambers or by panels.
[10:19:1865; B § 919; BH § 2434; C § 2517; RL § 4837; NCL § 8379]—(NRS A 1967, 836; 1997, 1530; 2015, 3692)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1990–2002 · leading case: Glover v. Concerned Citizens for Fuji Park
Glover v. Concerned Citizens for Fuji Park (2002)
“[29] Carson City Charter § 2.140. [30] Id. at § 1.010(1). [31] Nev.”
Craigo v. Circus-Circus Enterprises, Inc. (1990)
“Conclusion Since "[t]hree justices shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business," NRS 2.140, there is, with the filing of this opinion, no binding ruling on what really means "malice, express or implied" in this state.”
Whitehead v. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (1996)
“" NRS 2.140 provides that "[t]hree justices shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”
Whitehead v. Nevada Commission of Judicial Discipline (1995)
“) Further, NRS 2.140 provides that the transaction of judicial business of the supreme court requires “the concurrence of three justices who heard the argument.”
Del Papa v. Steffen (1996)
“(10) That while there is a rule of necessity recognized by some courts and this court has certain inherent powers, this rule and these powers do not serve in this case to override NRS 2.140, which disallows fewer than three justices to pronounce judgment in a case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.