Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian
State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court had two holdings in this case. First, a final decision for purposes of judicial review must contain a detailed finding of facts and conclusions of law by an administrative agency. Second, when a petition for judicial review is filed prematurely, it does not vest jurisdiction in the district court.
Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers Loc. 16 V. Lab. Comm’R; Univ. Of Nev., Reno; & Core Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 4, 2018), Alma Orozco
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 233B.130(2)(c)(1)’s service requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. Further, under NRS 233B.130(5), the district court has jurisdiction to extend time for service for good cause, either before or after the 45-day service period has run.
Rural Tel. Co. V. Pub. Util. Comm’N Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 3, 2017), Marco Luna
Rural Tel. Co. V. Pub. Util. Comm’N Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 3, 2017), Marco Luna
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing Rural Telephone Company’s (Rural Telephone) petition for judicial review against the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) because the district court did not have authority to grant Rural Telephone’s request for an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities, through statute or through its inherent authority.
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the State Engineer to grant water rights applications, there must be evidence to support the decision and the new rights must not substantially conflict with existing rights. On appeal from the District Court, the Court found no evidence to support the granted application, and held the use of Respondent’s rights would severely impact the water table. The Court reversed and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.