Skip to main content

Castillo v. State

Citations

  • 874 P.2d 1252
  • 110 Nev. 535
  • 1994 Nev. LEXIS 67

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that changes in statutes are presumed to operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent to apply a statute retroactively
  • stating that changes in statutes are presumed to operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent to apply a statute retroactively
  • observing that generally “courts have held that legislative enactments responding to judicial interpretations of a statute . . . are not ‘clarifications’ of original legislative intent, but are amendments presumed to operate prospectively absent contrary legislative intent.”
  • “[A]fter the supreme court of a state has interpreted the statute in question, it is no longer ambiguous and therefore cannot be clarified by the Legislature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rose, Springer, Steffen, Young, Shearing

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.