Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n

22 Citing cases

  1. Seino v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada

    121 Nev. 146 (Nev. 2005)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that equitable tolling suspends the running of a statute of limitations when the interests of justice so require and listing the appropriate factors

    Manke Truck Lines v. Public Service Comm'n, 109 Nev. 1034, 1036, 862 P.2d 1201, 1203 (1993).State, Dep't Mtr. Veh. v. Jones-West Ford, 114 Nev. 766, 772, 962 P.2d 624, 628 (1998); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984).Beavers v. State, Dep't of Mtr. Vehicles, 109 Nev. 435, 438, 851 P.2d 432, 434 (1993).

  2. State Industrial Insurance System v. Partlow-Hursh

    101 Nev. 122 (Nev. 1985)   Cited 9 times
    In Partlow-Hursh, this court noted that "NRS 616.5422(1) is silent as to whether or not the time limit can be excused. Where the statute is silent, the time period for perfecting an appeal is generally considered to be mandatory, not procedural."

    Our interpretation is based on an independent appellate review, "as opposed to a more deferential standard of review." Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). In light of this standard of review, we must determine whether mailing constitutes filing for purposes of NRS 616.5422(1), and whether the 30-day time specified for filing an appeal is jurisdictional or procedural.

  3. Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't

    129 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (Nev. 2013)   Cited 50 times
    Providing the elements for this exception to the mootness doctrine

    This court reviews questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, de novo. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). In doing so, we apply the plain meaning of the statute and give the words their ordinary meaning where the statute is plain and unambiguous.

  4. Williams v. Clark County Dist. Attorney

    118 Nev. 473 (Nev. 2002)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing this court's obligation to construe statutory provisions in harmony with each other when possible

    In fact, NRCP 6(a)'s express language provides that when a statute's time period is less than seven days, then Saturdays, Sundays, and non-judicial days are excluded from the computation. See Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984).Rogers v. State, 85 Nev. 361, 364, 455 P.2d 172, 173 (1969).

  5. Ges, Inc. v. Corbitt

    117 Nev. 265 (Nev. 2001)   Cited 198 times
    Concluding that, although an order denying summary judgment is not independently appealable, this court can review the denial of summary judgment where the issue is properly raised, as here, in an appeal from the final judgment

    We previously discussed the meaning of "concert of action" in Dow Chemical Co. v. Mahlum and explained that this doctrine requires more than just agreement to act: General Motors v. Jackson, 111 Nev. 1026, 1029, 900 P.2d 345, 348 (1995); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). 114 Nev. 1468, 1488-89, 970 P.2d 98, 111-12 (1998).

  6. Nevada Mining Ass'n v. Erdoes

    117 Nev. 531 (Nev. 2001)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting the phrase "not later than midnight Pacific standard time" to permit the Legislature to act until 1 a.m.

    The ballot question submitted to the voters at the general election read (emphasis ours): See, e.g., Nyberg v. Nevada Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 323-25, 683 P.2d 3, 5 (1984); Rogers v. State, 85 Nev. 361, 364, 455 P.2d 172, 173-74 (1969); Alaska Christian Bible Inst., 772 P.2d at 1081. Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to limit the length of Nevada's regular legislative sessions to not more than 120 calendar days and require the Governor to submit the proposed executive budget to the Legislature at least 14 days before the start of each regular session?

  7. Mauer v. Eicon

    115 Nev. 201 (Nev. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Since the facts are not disputed, and this appeal presents a question of statutory construction, independent appellate review is appropriate. Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 849 P.2d 267 (1993); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 683 P.2d 3 (1984). In Nevada, workers' compensation benefits are available to covered employees injured by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

  8. Hardy Hardy v. Wills

    958 P.2d 78 (Nev. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    We are asked to decide whether workers' compensation funds remain exempt from attachment, garnishment and execution under NRS 616C.205 (formerly NRS 616.550) after the compensation check is paid to the worker and negotiated by him. The question is one of statutory construction, which we review de novo. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). When the writ of execution was issued in this case, former NRS 616.550 provided, in relevant part:

  9. Roberts v. State Industrial Insurance System

    114 Nev. 364 (Nev. 1998)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that this court reviews an appeals officer's determinations on issues of law de novo, but gives deference to the appeals officer's factual findings when supported by substantial evidence

    Accordingly, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the appeals officer on matters of weight, credibility, or issues of fact. Apeceche v. White Pine Co., 96 Nev. 723, 615 P.2d 975 (1980). On issues of law, this court reviews an appeals officer's determination de novo. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 683 P.2d 3 (1984). Statutory construction is an issue of law subject to this court's de novo review.

  10. Langman v. Nevada Administrators, Inc.

    114 Nev. 203 (Nev. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing that this court's role in reviewing an administrative decision is to determine the propriety of the agency's decision in light of the evidence presented to the agency

    Titanium Metals Corp. v. Clark County, 99 Nev. 397, 399, 663 P.2d 355, 357 (1983); NRS 233B.135. Because this case concerns the construction of a statute, however, independent review is necessary. "The construction of a statute is a question of law, and independent appellate review of an administrative ruling, rather than a more deferential standard of review, is appropriate." Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993) (citing Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984); American Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983)). Whether the applicable burden of proof for reopening a claim under former NRS 616.545 (now NRS 616C.390) is determined by the date of the original industrial injury or by the date of the request to reopen the claim