Add to ORKGThe Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determination that a crime is so serious that termination serves the public good, even when the agency has no published regulation dictating that outcome, and (2) an administrative hearing officer committed a clear error of law in relying, in any way, upon an invalid regulation to review an agency’s determination to terminate for a first-time disciplinary action
Under NRS 22.030, for a district court to have jurisdiction to hold a party in indirect contempt, th...
The Court held that NRS § 1.428 is constitutional. Thus, hearing masters are subject to the Nevada C...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...
The Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determinati...
The Court reviewed de novo whether a classified employee violated a law or regulation when she chall...
The issue is whether an employee’s appeal to challenge a state employer’s disciplinary action is def...
The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a district court order granting a petition for jud...
The Supreme Court determined that the plain language of NRS 213.1243 does not grant the State Board ...
The Court had two holdings in this case. First, a final decision for purposes of judicial review mus...
An attorney for a public body, such as the Nevada Commission on Ethics, must obtain authorization fr...
In an opinion drafted by Justice Herndon, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether attorneys who ...
The Court determined that (1) when a licensed Nevada attorney pleads guilty to a felony, Supreme Cou...
The Court held that NRS 233B.130 prohibits attorney fees in petitions for judicial review of agency ...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court affirmed the district court’s decision and held that the prosecutorial consent provision i...
Under NRS 22.030, for a district court to have jurisdiction to hold a party in indirect contempt, th...
The Court held that NRS § 1.428 is constitutional. Thus, hearing masters are subject to the Nevada C...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...
The Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determinati...
The Court reviewed de novo whether a classified employee violated a law or regulation when she chall...
The issue is whether an employee’s appeal to challenge a state employer’s disciplinary action is def...
The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a district court order granting a petition for jud...
The Supreme Court determined that the plain language of NRS 213.1243 does not grant the State Board ...
The Court had two holdings in this case. First, a final decision for purposes of judicial review mus...
An attorney for a public body, such as the Nevada Commission on Ethics, must obtain authorization fr...
In an opinion drafted by Justice Herndon, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether attorneys who ...
The Court determined that (1) when a licensed Nevada attorney pleads guilty to a felony, Supreme Cou...
The Court held that NRS 233B.130 prohibits attorney fees in petitions for judicial review of agency ...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court affirmed the district court’s decision and held that the prosecutorial consent provision i...
Under NRS 22.030, for a district court to have jurisdiction to hold a party in indirect contempt, th...
The Court held that NRS § 1.428 is constitutional. Thus, hearing masters are subject to the Nevada C...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...