Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture

Nevada Supreme Court

Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture

DecidedApril 23, 2014

Docket62777

StatusUnpublished

This text of Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture (Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

at issue turns on facts unique to the matter at hand, 1 and both the State and Vogler raise no more than a theoretical possibility that the same controversy will recur. 2 Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1342-43 (9th Cir. 1985); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994). As we indicated in our February 5, 2014, order, the court recognizes that the State has invested "significant time, money, resources and effort" in this litigation. And Vogler, too, apparently wishes to have this court hear the merits. But we cannot enlarge our jurisdiction "beyond

'Namely: Vogler's supposed protected interest in his terms of office; the legislative intent behind Section 15.5; the Legislature's alleged discriminatory targeting of Vogler with Section 15.5's enactment; the presence or absence of a "compelling state interest" in enforcing Section 15.5; and an alleged flaw in the enacting bill's title rendering the section void.

2 Contrary to Vogler's assertions, whether or not Section 6 of Senate Bill 251 remains in existence is irrelevant; the State demanded his removal under Section 15.5. Section 6 was not in issue.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ve the constitutional grant of power." State v. Warrnington, 81 Nev. 369, 371, 403 P.2d 849, 850 (1965). We therefore ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 3

C.J. Gibbons

Hardesty

J. J. Parra guirre Douglas

Saitta

3 We agree with the State that this dismissal does not render Vogler a prevailing party for attorney fee purposes. See Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 485-86, 851 P.2d 459, 464 (1993); see also Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58, 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981) (noting that by dismissing a case for mootness the court is "refus[ing] to determine questions presented ....").

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e cc: Chief Judge, The Seventh Judicial District Court Hon. Miriam Shearing, Senior Justice Smith & Harmer Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

at issue turns on facts unique to the matter at hand, 1 and both the State and Vogler raise no more than a theoretical possibility that the same controversy will recur. 2 Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1342-43 (9th Cir. 1985); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994). As we indicated in our February 5, 2014, order, the court recognizes that the State has invested "significant time, money, resources and effort" in this litigation. And Vogler, too, apparently wishes to have this court hear the merits. But we cannot enlarge our jurisdiction "beyond

'Namely: Vogler's supposed protected interest in his terms of office; the legislative intent behind Section 15.5; the Legislature's alleged discriminatory targeting of Vogler with Section 15.5's enactment; the presence or absence of a "compelling state interest" in enforcing Section 15.5; and an alleged flaw in the enacting bill's title rendering the section void.

2 Contrary to Vogler's assertions, whether or not Section 6 of Senate Bill 251 remains in existence is irrelevant; the State demanded his removal under Section 15.5. Section 6 was not in issue.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ve the constitutional grant of power." State v. Warrnington, 81 Nev. 369, 371, 403 P.2d 849, 850 (1965). We therefore ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 3

C.J. Gibbons

Hardesty

J. J. Parra guirre Douglas

Saitta

3 We agree with the State that this dismissal does not render Vogler a prevailing party for attorney fee purposes. See Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 485-86, 851 P.2d 459, 464 (1993); see also Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 58, 624 P.2d 10, 11 (1981) (noting that by dismissing a case for mootness the court is "refus[ing] to determine questions presented ....").

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e cc: Chief Judge, The Seventh Judicial District Court Hon. Miriam Shearing, Senior Justice Smith & Harmer Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogler-v-state-dept-of-agriculture-nev-2014.

Opinion

J. J. Parra guirre Douglas

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack