Board of Regents v. Oakley

2 Citing cases

  1. Nev. Policy Research Inst. v. Miller

    140 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Nev. 2024)

    . See Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Nev. Sys. v. Oakley, 97 Nev. 605, 608, 637 P.2d 1199, 1200 (1981) (providing that the Legislature may not invade the Board's power through legislation interfering with its essential functions). While the Governor had a constitutional role as a member of the first Board until an election could be held for a new Board of Regents, Nev. Const, art. 11, ยง 7, article 11 otherwise does not mention the Governor or the executive department, and we have rejected the proposition that the Board was part of the executive department such that the Board's actions elude judicial review, State ex rel. Richardson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Nev., 70 Nev. 144, 147, 261 P.2d 515, 516 (1953).

  2. University & Community College System of Nevada v. DR Partners

    117 Nev. 195 (Nev. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that "the sovereign functions of higher education repose in the Board of Regents," which has been constitutionally entrusted to control and manage the University

    In its brief to this court, the Newspaper argues for the first time that the governing documents have the force and effect of a statute, and because they contain provisions establishing the community college president as a University officer, the position is essentially a public office established by a state statute. See State ex rel. Richardson v. Board of Regents, 70 Nev. 144, 150, 261 P.2d 515, 518 (1953) (holding Board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have "the force and effect of statute"); see also Board of Regents v. Oakley, 97 Nev. 605, 608, 637 P.2d 1199, 1201 (1981) (acknowledging that the Richardson court had concluded "that a provision of the University of Nevada System Code has the force of law," but noting the effect of the conclusion was to bind the Board to regulations it had previously established). The Newspaper's arguments are not persuasive.