Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan" in English language version.

Last modified: 09:31:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Ref.Un. Ref.Website

Global rank English rank

1616cornell.edu

308^th place

253^rd place

44nv.gov

6,207^th place

4,307^th place

33state.nv.us

low place

5,939^th place

33web.archive.org

1^st place

33nevadajudiciary.us

low place

11supremecourt.gov

3,581^st place

1,811^th place

cornell.edu (Global: 308^th place; English: 253^rd place)

law.cornell.edu

p. 4 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
p. 4 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Within 15 years of the founding, both the House of Representatives and the Senate adopted recusal rules." p. 4 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Federal conflict-of-interest rules applicable to judges also date back to the founding." p. 5 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"The Nevada Supreme Court’s belief that recusal rules violate legislators’ First Amendment rights is also inconsistent with long-standing traditions in the States". p. 6 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"The answer is that a legislator’s vote is the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature’s power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal. The legislative power thus committed is not personal to the legislator but belongs to the people; the legislator has no personal right to it." p. 8 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
p. 9 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"The application of the statute’s language to the case just supposed, and to any number of variations on the supposition, is not apparent." p. 3 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Kennedy Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
" A statute of this sort is an invitation to selective enforcement" p. 3 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Kennedy Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
p. 1 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Kennedy Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
p. 4 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Kennedy Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Carrigan raises two additional arguments in his brief: that Nevada’s catchall provision unconstitutionally burdens the right of association of officials and supporters, and that the provision is unconstitutionally vague. Whatever the merits of these arguments, we have no occasion to consider them. Neither was decided below: The Nevada Supreme Court made no mention of the former argument and said that it need not address the latter given its resolution of the overbreadth challenge... Nor was either argument raised in Carrigan’s brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari. Arguments thus omitted are normally considered waived" p. 11 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"JUSTICE ALITO, "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment" p. 1 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"I concur in the judgment, but I do not agree with the opinion of the Court insofar as it suggests that restrictions upon legislators’ voting are not restrictions upon legislators’ speech." p. 1 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
p. 3 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"In Part III of its opinion, the Court demonstrates that legislative recusal rules were not regarded during the founding era as impermissible restrictions on freedom of speech. On that basis, I agree that the judgment below must be reversed." p. 3 Supreme Court of the United States (June 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

nevadajudiciary.us (Global: low place; English: low place)

"Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review… reversed." Opinion p. 1 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada (July 2010). "Carrigan v. Comm. On Ethics of the State of Nevada (Opinion and Dissent)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"we first conclude that voting by public officers on public issues is protected speech under the First Amendment… we conclude that NRS 281A.420(8)(e) is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment" Opinion p. 3 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada (July 2010). "Carrigan v. Comm. On Ethics of the State of Nevada (Opinion and Dissent)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Before today, no published decision has held that an elected local official engages in core political speech when he or she votes" Dissent p. 1 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada (July 2010). "Carrigan v. Comm. On Ethics of the State of Nevada (Opinion and Dissent)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

nv.gov (Global: 6,207^th place; English: 4,307^th place)

ethics.nv.gov

"Councilman Carrigan violated NRS 281.501, subsection 2, by not abstaining from voting on the Lazy 8 matter at the August 23, 2006 Council meeting." p. 5 Nevada Commission on Ethics (October 2007). "Carrigan Opinion" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"The independence of judgement of a reasonable person in Councilman Carrigan's position would be affected by the commitment and relationship Councilman Carrigan shares with Mr. Vasquez. Therefore, the Commission ruled that during the August 23, 2006 Council meeting, when the Lazy 8 matter was heard, Councilman Carrigan had a commitment in a private capacity to the interest of Mr. Vasquez" p. 8 Nevada Commission on Ethics (October 2007). "Carrigan Opinion" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Councilman Carrigan's violation… was not willful" p. 5 Nevada Commission on Ethics (October 2007). "Carrigan Opinion" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"[Councilman Carrigan] did not use his position in the government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for Carlos Vasquez" p. 4 Nevada Commission on Ethics (October 2007). "Carrigan Opinion" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

state.nv.us (Global: low place; English: 5,939^th place)

leg.state.nv.us

§281A.420(3) Nevada Revised Statutes. "Ethics In Government". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
§281A.420(8)(a)-(e) Nevada Revised Statutes. "Ethics In Government". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
§281A.280(1) Nevada Revised Statutes. "Ethics In Government". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

supremecourt.gov (Global: 3,581^st place; English: 1,811^th place)

"Petition GRANTED." Entry for Jan 7 2011 Supreme Court of the United States (July 2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Docket Notes)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

web.archive.org (Global: 1^st place; English: 1^st place)

"Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review… reversed." Opinion p. 1 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada (July 2010). "Carrigan v. Comm. On Ethics of the State of Nevada (Opinion and Dissent)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"we first conclude that voting by public officers on public issues is protected speech under the First Amendment… we conclude that NRS 281A.420(8)(e) is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment" Opinion p. 3 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada (July 2010). "Carrigan v. Comm. On Ethics of the State of Nevada (Opinion and Dissent)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Before today, no published decision has held that an elected local official engages in core political speech when he or she votes" Dissent p. 1 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada (July 2010). "Carrigan v. Comm. On Ethics of the State of Nevada (Opinion and Dissent)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (English Wikipedia)

cornell.edu (Global: 308th place; English: 253rd place)

law.cornell.edu

nevadajudiciary.us (Global: low place; English: low place)

nv.gov (Global: 6,207th place; English: 4,307th place)