Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n

4 Citing cases

  1. 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:

  2. State Industrial Insurance System v. Miller

    112 Nev. 1112 (Nev. 1996)   Cited 16 times
    Setting forth the rule that the interpretation of a statute by an agency charged with the duty of administering the statute is entitled to deference

    The construction of an administrative statute is a question of law for this court's de novo review. Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993); 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). The relevant portions of NRS 616C.440 state as follows:

  3. Seader v. Clark Co. Risk Mgmt

    906 P.2d 255 (Nev. 1995)

    A far less deferential standard of review is appropriate when this court is considering the interpretation of a statute because this situation involves a question of law. Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993) (citing Nyberg v. Nevada Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984)). Consequently, this court may independently review an agency's decision when the interpretation of a statute is at issue.

  4. Maxwell v. State Industrial Insurance System

    109 Nev. 327 (Nev. 1993)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact

    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. 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).