5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Technologically Improving Textualism
Get PDFThe textualist approach to construing statutes, regulations, contracts, and other documents remains dominant but has drawbacks, most significantly its tendency to disregard probative evidence of textual meaning in favor of isolated judicial impressions and dictionary definitions. Although a broader, contextual, “integrative” approach to interpretation is preferable, the hegemony of textualism, even extreme textualism, is unlikely to recede soon. Textualism can be substantially improved, however, through effective use of a form of big data—the corpus linguistics approach to discerning word meaning. By enlarging the universe of sources about how words are actually used, corpus linguistics represents a significant improvement over imperial judicial pronouncements about word meaning along with episodic and inconsistent use of dictionary definitions for deciding cases. If deployed as tool of textualism rather than formulaic use of a bigger dictionary, corpus linguistics analysis can, at a minimum, serve as a useful supplement to traditional textualist tools
Vargas v. J. Morales, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 2, 2022)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order granting respondent NRCP 60(b)(1) and (6) relief from a prior judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with the reversal. The Court held that (1) an NRCP 60(b)(1) motion is untimely when 14 months have elapsed since the judgment was entered and (2) that relief under NRCP 60(b)(6) is unjustified where it would have been available under NRCP 60(B)(1) if timely
Thomas v. State, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 26, 2022)
Get PDFThe Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief, which the lower court issued without an evidentiary hearing. The Court considered whether the district court erred in denying the petition without a hearing based on several contentions raised by the petitioner on appeal. The Court ultimately affirmed the order in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the two claims for which the appellant was entitled to relief
Blount v. Blount, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (Jul. 07, 2022)
Get PDFThe court ruled that the statutory language found in NRS 125A.465, Nevada’s codification of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), is unambiguous and that its plain meaning applies as written. The court specifically addressed the timeline in which parties with existing custody or visitation rights can challenge new registrations of custody orders seeking to amend or alter existing orders. Appellants attempted to block the Nevada registration of an updated child custody determination ordered by a neighboring Tribal Court, by filing a challenge to the registration twenty-four days after receiving notice, four days after the allowable time requirement. The district court confirmed the registration by concluding that the neighboring jurisdiction had exclusive authority to amend the child custody determination. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the confirmation of the registration after holding that the language in NRS 125A.465, requiring challenges to be made within twenty days of notice, was unambiguous and would be applied as written. Therefore, the statutory twenty-day challenge window was intended to be strictly enforced, the appellants untimely challenge mandated a confirmation of the order as a matter of law , and once confirmed by the district court, any further arguments which could have been brought during the twenty-day window were precluded from appellate challenge
Tribal Casinos and Online Gaming: Hurdles in Modifying State Charters to Meet the Digital Era
Get PDFSFR Inves. Pool 1, LLC. v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2022)
Get PDFThe specific question presented in this case is what effect a notice of rescission has on NRS 106.240’s ten-year time frame when it is recorded after a notice of default. A notice of rescission rescinds a previous notice of default. The notice of rescission effectively cancelled the acceleration triggered by the notice of default such that the ten-year time period is reset