a child). 8 Anthony Lee R,, A Minor v. State, 113 Nev. 1406, 1414, 952 P.2d 1, 6 (1997). 9 See State v. State, Employees Assoc., 102 Nev. 287, 289, 720 P.2d 697, 698 (1986) (“When a statute uses words which have a definite and plain meaning, the words will retain that meaning unless it clearly appears that such meaning was not so intended.”). 10 Gallagher v. City of Las Vegas, 114 Nev. 595, 599-600, 959 P.2d 519, 521 (1998). While legislative histories are often helpful in this regard, no history was available regarding the “discovery” language of NRS 171.095(l)(a) because it was originally added to Nevada’s statutes as part of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1911 and has remained materially unchanged ever since. 11 Id. 12 See State v. Merolla, 100 Nev. 461, 464, 686 P.2d 244, 246 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Grotts v. Zahner, 115 Nev. 339, 342, 989 P.2d
holding such statutes are not analogous statutes of limitation for erisa purposes holding that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operation holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed holding that the states personal injury statutes of limitation should be applied for claims under section 1983