Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dunphy v. Sheehan

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1976No. 8707Published

1Dissent

Gunderson, C. L,

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent from this Court’s holding, i.e., that the Ethics in Government Law is void because its provisions concerning financial disclosure are impermissibly vague.

1. Of course, because penal statutes must be strictly construed, any ambiguity in NRS 281.650 necessarily would be resolved in favor of anyone accused of violating its terms. See, for example: Sheriff v. Hanks, 91 Nev. 57, 530 P.2d 1191 (1975); Labor Comm’r v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 89 Nev. 21, 505 P.2d 288 (1973); Peck v. Womack, 65 Nev. 184, 192 P.2d 894 (1948); Orr Ditch Co. v. District…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Orr Ditch & Water Co. v. Justice Court of Reno TownshipNevada Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Ex parte DavisNevada Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Sheriff, Clark County v. HanksNevada Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Peck v. WoomackNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Labor Commissioner v. Mapes Hotel CorporationNevada Supreme Court · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API