Nevada Supreme Court issues 2 opinions

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
In re Candelaria - In an en banc opinion authored by Chief Justice Parraguirre, with dissents by Justices Cherry and Saitta, the Court explains its rationale for its previously issued decision concerning the 5 year period applicable to those seek election as a justice of the peace: "In this appeal, we are asked to define the eligibility requirements set forth in NRS 4.010(2)(a) for justice of the peace.  Based on the statute's plain and unambiguous language, we conclude that, before being elected or appointed to a justice of the peace position, an attorney must be licensed to practice law for a minimum of five calendar years, which are typically 365-day years, from the date of his or her admission.  After expedited briefing and argument, we summarily affirmed the district court's order granting the petition to remove the candidate for justice of the peace from the ballot, as she did not meet the minimum five-year requirement.  This opinion sets forth the full reasoning that underlies our disposition."

Orion Portfolio Servs. 2 v. Clark County - In an en banc opinion, authored by Justice Douglas, the Court addresses the following: "The United States District Court for the District of Nevada has certified two questions to this court, pursuant to NRAP 5.  Although we accept the federal court's certified questions, we reframe them to better reflect the factual circumstances of the federal case and, accordingly, answer the following questions.  When a local government entity sells property using the competitive bidding process, does NRS 332.185 require the government to follow public bidding rules outlined in Chapter 332?  And, under Nevada law, is a contract obtained through competitive bidding void when it materially differs from the contents of the invitation to bid?

            We conclude that the answer to both questions is yes.  If a public entity chooses to sell property by competitive bidding, it must follow the rules set forth in NRS Chapter 332.  And a contract obtained through competitive bidding is void if it materially differs from the contents of the invitation to bid."


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nevada Supreme Court issues 2 opinions.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on October 19, 2010 8:22 AM.

Oral Argument Calendar: Oct. 13 was the previous entry in this blog.

US Supreme Court grants cert in 1 case: immunity for unlawful detention is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0