v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993). 3 NRS 241.020(1). 4 105 Nev. 886, 784 P.2d 974 (1989). 5 Id. at 892, 784 P.2d at 978. 6 1960 Nev. Stat., ch. 23, at 25. 7 Id. § 4, at 25-26. 8 70 Nev 116, 120-21, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (1953). 9 Id. at 121, 258 P.2d at 984 (quoting State ex rel. Kendall v. Cole, 38 Nev. 215, 221, 148 P. 551, 552 (1915) (quoting Bruce Wyman, The Principles of the Administrative Law Governing the Relations of Public Officers § 44 (1903))). 10 Id. at 123, 258 P.2d at 985. 11 38 Nev. 215, 148 P 551 (1915). 12 Id. at 224, 148 P. at 553. 13 Id. at 232-33, 148 P. at 556. 14 1967 Nev. Stat., ch. 523, § 444, at 1471. 15 89 Nev. 308, 311, 511 P.2d 1036, 1037 (1973). 16 See State ex rel. Richardson v. Board of Regents, 70 Nev. 144, 150, 261 P.2d 515, 518 (1953) (<HOLDING>); see also Board of Regents v. Oakley, 97 Nev.
holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute recognizing privilege under federal rules holding valid administrative rules promulgated by agency acting within its statutory authority have force and effect of legislation holding that when an agencys interpretation of its own rules flies in the face of the language of the rules themselves it is owed no deference holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery