Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nevada Cornell Silver Mines, Inc. v. Hankins

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1929No. 2806Published

1Dissent

I dissent from the order of reversal.

It is a generally recognized canon of construction that, "if a statute is plain, certain and unambiguous, so that no doubt arises from its own terms as to its scope and meaning, a bare reading suffices; then interpretation is needless." The statute is of this character. It reads in part: "Summons shall be served by the sheriff of the county where the defendant is found, or by his deputy, or by any citizen of the United States over twenty-one years of age. * * *" Section 5022.

There is nothing obscure in its phrasing. This broad authorization certainly…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. EstensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  2. Nelson v. ChittendenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1912
  3. Rutherford v. MoodySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API