Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: JUDICIAL REVIEW (1)
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE NEVADA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (1)
- Administrative agency appeal (1)
- CASINO (1)
- CIVIL APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY (1)
-
- CIVIL PROCEDURE: WRIT OF MANDAMUS (1)
- City of Sparks Reno Gazette Journal (1)
- GAMING LICENSE (1)
- LIQUOR LICENSE (1)
- Medical Marijuana (1)
- NEVADA GAMING COMMISSION (1)
- NRS 485 (1)
- Nevada Commission on Ethics (1)
- Nevada Public Records Act (1)
- Notice of Appeal (1)
- Open Meeting Law (1)
- PROPERTY: EQUALIZING PROPERTY REAPPRAISALS (1)
- PUBLIC RECORDS RELEASE (1)
- Request for Opinion (1)
- STATUTORY VAGUENESS (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dep’T Of Health & Human Serv.’S V. Samantha Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 14, 2017), Sara Schreiber
Dep’T Of Health & Human Serv.’S V. Samantha Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 14, 2017), Sara Schreiber
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the right to petition for judicial review is limited to contested cases. When Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) denies an applicant a registration certificate to operate a medical marijuana dispensary, it is not a contested case under the APA. Since it is not a contested case, the applicant cannot petition the court for judicial review.
State Engineer V. Eureka County, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sep. 27, 2017), Michelle Harnik
State Engineer V. Eureka County, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sep. 27, 2017), Michelle Harnik
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an en banc appeal from a district court order, the Court affirmed the district court’s order granting the existing holders of water rights’ petition for judicial review and vacating a limited liability company’s permits to appropriate water as proper and in compliance with the Court’s prior mandate.
City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith
City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reviewed an appeal to determine whether an appellant: (1) “properly sought the disclosure of public records by a writ of mandamus,” and (2) whether medical marijuana establishments (“MMEs”) business license identifying information must be disclosed pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act. The Court held that NRS 239.011 provides the specific means by which to challenge the disclosure of public records, and thus Respondent properly filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Additionally, pursuant to NRS 453A.370(5), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public and Behavior Health (“Division”) has the proper authority to adopt …
Comm’N On Ethics Of Nev. V. Hansen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Jun. 29, 2017), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Comm’N On Ethics Of Nev. V. Hansen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Jun. 29, 2017), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An attorney for a public body, such as the Nevada Commission on Ethics, must obtain authorization from the client in a public meeting before filing an appeal of a district court decision. Failure to obtain authorization results in a defective, invalid notice of appeal.
Malfitano V. County Of Storey, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (June 29, 2017), Brent Resh
Malfitano V. County Of Storey, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (June 29, 2017), Brent Resh
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The term “satisfactory”, as used in county code providing for liquor licensing, was not unconstitutionally vague where the provision was not related to any civil or criminal penalty. Additionally, Respondents did not violate Appellant’s due process rights by denying his application for a liquor license because Appellant had no cognizable property interest in or entitlement to the license. Finally, Appellant’s equal protection rights were not violated because Respondents had a rational basis for denying Appellant’s application.
Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery
Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A judgment for penalty attorney fees and costs against a driver in an action that arises out of a motor vehicle accident is not a “judgment . . . upon a cause of action” arising out of the use of a motor vehicle such that its nonpayment may result in the suspension of driving privileges under NRS § 485.302.
Poremba V. S. Nev. Paving, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Christopher Kelly
Poremba V. S. Nev. Paving, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Christopher Kelly
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) an administrative officer must first determine whether to reopen a worker’s compensation benefits claim, pursuant only to the requirements of NRS 616C.390, before considering whether the insurer is entitled to reimbursement due to a third party settlement; and (2) that insurers may be entitled to reimbursement for funds an injured party receives in third party settlements that are also covered by workers’ compensation, but are not entitled to reimbursement from the portion of the settlement designated for remedies outside the definition of “compensation” in NRS 616A.090, including pain and suffering and lost wages.
Village League V. State Bd. Of Equalization, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 1 (January 26, 2017), Yolanda Carapia
Village League V. State Bd. Of Equalization, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 1 (January 26, 2017), Yolanda Carapia
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) NRS 361.395 does not provide the State Board with authority to order reappraisals; and (2) the 2010 regulation purporting to provide the State Board with such authority does not apply retroactively to the tax years at issue in this case.