Opinion ID: 2621965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation

Text: Resolution of this petition depends upon the interpretation of NRS 295.056(3) and two constitutional provisions, Article 19, Sections 2(4) and 3(2). In discerning their meaning, we rely on well-established precepts of statutory and constitutional construction. In the context of a writ petition, a statute's interpretation is reviewed de novo. [12] The rules of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of a constitutional provision. [13] Unless ambiguous, a statute's language is applied in accordance with its plain meaning. [14] When the Legislature's intent is clear from the plain language, this court will give effect to such intention and construe the statute's language to effectuate rather than nullify its manifest purpose. [15] This court has recognized that [t]he Nevada Constitution should be read as a whole, so as to give effect to and harmonize each provision. [16] Thus, when possible, the interpretation of a statute or constitutional provision will be harmonized with other statutes or provisions to avoid unreasonable or absurd results. [17] Conversely, if a constitutional provision's language is subject to more than one reasonable, although inconsistent, interpretation, [18] the court may look to the provision's legislative history and the constitutional scheme as a whole to determine what the Nevada Constitution's framers intended. [19]