green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Kirksey v. State ↗
Issue: law of the case doctrineNV ↗
Issue: law of the case prevents doctrineNV ↗
Issue: law of the case cannot doctrineNV ↗
Issue: law of the case prevents further doctrineNV ↗
Quoted verbatim 5×
126.6 score
G Cite
cited 11× by 5 distinct cases, 2013–2022→ Stable ·
…the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
at p. 799
✓
cited 10× by 10 distinct cases, 2014–2019→ Stable ·
…cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
✓
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2013–2021 ·
…cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Reddy v. Medappeal, Llc
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Holmes v. Nevada Department of Corrections
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
the law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the 17 facts are substantially the same.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Weber (Timmy) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Blake (Alfonso) v. Warden (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Brass (George) v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ross v. Williams
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
This 12 court has previously held that appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated, Ross v. State, Docket No. 52921 (Order of Affirmance, November 8, 2010), and 13 that holding is the law of the case, Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marshall v. Williams
This holding represents the law of the case, Hall 6 v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975), and Marshall did not claim an exception to this doctrine, see Tien Fu 7 Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Forsberg v. Gittere
See Forsberg v. State, Docket No. 54223 (Order 24 of Affirmance, July 15, 2010); Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190 , 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (distinguishing plain error and harmless error 25 standards of review); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) (discussing law-of-the-case doctrine).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
CHAPPELL (JAMES) v. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)
(28×)
also: Cited "see"
Because the decision in Chappell 111 establishes the law of the case as to those issues, see Hall, 91 Nev. at 315-16, 535 P.2d at 798-99, second postconviction counsel had an objectively reasonable basis to omit a penalty-phase-counsel claim based on them.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. Nevin
(2×)
While appellant argues that this court erred in its disposition of these issues on 13 direct appeal, the doctrine of law of the case prevents further litigation of these issues and “cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused 14 argument.” Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316 , 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bolanos, Jr. (Arturo) Vs. State
(3×)
Because this court considered and rejected this argument on appeal, Bolanos v. State, Docket No. 65622 Order of Affirmance at 4 (Nov. 24, 2015), the doctrine of the law of the case precludes reconsideration unless appellant demonstrates a substantive change in law applicable to his case, Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 632, 173 P.3d 724 (2007); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975); see also NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2) (waiver bar).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
HOWARD (SAMUEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC) C/W 81279
(3×)
See Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing exceptions to the doctrine of the law of the case that have been adopted by federal courts); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) (explaining that the doctrine of the law of the case prohibits subsequent claims "in which the facts are substantially the same" (internal quotation omitted)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
HOWARD (SAMUEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC) C/W 81279
(3×)
See Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing exceptions to the doctrine of the law of the case that have been adopted by federal courts); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) (explaining that the doctrine of the law of the case prohibits subsequent claims "in which the facts are substantially the same" (internal quotation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott (Christian) Vs. State
See Scott v. State, Docket No. 73182 (Order of Affirmance, July 26, 2018) (impliedly holding that the killing occurred in a continuous transaction with the robbery when concluding that the district court did not err in denying an instruction about intervening acts); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) (stating law-of-the-case doctrine).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Goodlow v. Baker
Because this court has already considered these claims and concluded Goodlow was 10 not entitled to relief, the doctrine of the law of the case prevents further litigation of these issues and “cannot be avoided by a more detailed and 11 precisely focused argument.” Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316 , 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia (Ramon) Vs. Warden C/W 80988
It is the law of the case that the movement and restraint of the victims inside the fuel injection store exceeded that required to complete the robbery and thus supported SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 2 (0) I947A algEPIID convictions for both robbery and kidnapping.2 See Garcia, Docket No. 48123; Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975); cf. Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 275 , 130 P.3d 176, 181 (2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia (Ramon) Vs. Warden C/W 80988
It is the law of the case that the movement and restraint of the victims inside the fuel injection store exceeded that required to complete the robbery and thus supported SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 2 (0) I947A algEPIID convictions for both robbery and kidnapping.2 See Garcia, Docket No. 48123; Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975); cf. Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 275 , 130 P.3d 176, 181 (2006).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonard (William) Vs. Warden (Death Penalty-Pc)
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). 1The petition was filed 24 years after the effective date of NRS 34.726.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. Williams
Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 629-30 , 173 P.3d 724, 728 (2007); Hall v. State, 4 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Urenda-Bustos (Luis) Vs. State
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975) (holding that "Nile law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same" and that "Mlle doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argumene in later proceedings).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mccallister (Donald) Vs. State
Relitigation of that part of the ineffective-assistance claim therefore is barred by the law of the case, which a cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman (Marco) Vs. State
See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415 , 990 P.2d 1263, 1275 (1999) (recognizing that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies in the context of a habeas petition); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) CThe law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same." (quoting Walker v. State, 85 Nev. 337, 343 , 455 P.2d 34, 38 (1969))); see also NRS 34.810(2) (requiring dismissal of second or successive petition if it "fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and that the prior determination was on the SUP…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sfr Invs. Pool 1, Llc Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.
Although SFR Investments contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine is inapplicable because this court has yet to address its new tender- related arguments, "Mlle doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316 , 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker (James) Vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975).2 Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence Walker argues that the State's failure to turn over evidence related to a witness to the Anziano attack in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), provided good cause for the delay in filing the petition.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Vs. Patterson (Jaysen)
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975) (holding that "Mlle law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same" and that "Mlle doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument" in later proceedings).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guerrina (Robert) Vs. State
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A Guerrina next raises a number of claims that either were raised on direct appeal and, as law of the case, cannot be relitigated, Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975), or should have been raised, if at all, on direct appeal and are now waived absent demonstration of good cause and prejudice, which Guerrina does not make, see Franklin v. State, 110 Nev. 750, 752 , 877 P.2d 1058, 1059 (1994) (explaining that issues that could be raised on direct appeal must be raised on direct appeal or they will be waived in subsequent proceedings),…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zuniga (Valentin) Vs. State
The doctrine of the law of the case prevents further litigation of this issue, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797,798-99 (1975), and appellant has not provided any compelling reason to revisit this decision, see Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silva v. Williams
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975). 11 12 ECF Nos. 8 at 10; ECF No. 9-84 at 22–23 (quoting ECF No. 9-80 at 5).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marlow (Jess) v. Warden
Relitigation is barred by the law of the case, which "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marlow (Jess) v. Warden
Relitigation is barred by the law of the case, which "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Langford (Justin) v. State C/W 76075
See Langford v. State, Docket No. 70536 (Order of Affirmance, June 27, 2017); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Langford (Justin) v. State C/W 76075
See Langford v. State, Docket No. 70536 (Order of Affirmance, June 27, 2017); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Langford (Justin) v. State C/W 76075
See Langford v. State, Docket No. 70536 (Order of Affirmance, June 27, 2017); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Langford (Justin) v. State C/W 76075
See Langford v. State, Docket No. 70536 (Order of Affirmance, June 27, 2017); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones (Christopher) v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Of Clark, 125 Nev. 625, 631 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing that law-of-the-case doctrine may be avoided if "(1) subsequent proceedings produce substantially new or different evidence, (2) there has been an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) he prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice if enforced"), see also Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975) (explaining that reconsideration of claims denied on their merits is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hill (Marvie) v. State
The doctrine of the law of the case precludes further consideration of this issue, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975), and appellant has not provided a cogent argument to overcome the law of the case, see Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 629-32 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-30 (2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Forsberg (Todd) v. State
See Forsberg v. State, Docket No. 54223 (Order of Affirmance, July 15, 2010); Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190 , 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (distinguishing plain error and harmless error standards of review); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) (discussing law-of-the-case doctrine).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
RIPPO (MICHAEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)
(14×)
also: Cited "see"
Given that further litigation of the issue is precluded by the law- of-the-case doctrine, see Hall, 91 Nev. at 315, 535 P.2d at 798, we are not convinced that postconviction counsel's failure to re-raise this issue fell outside of the wide range of professionally competent assistance.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
RIPPO (MICHAEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)
(14×)
also: Cited "see"
Given that further litigation of the issue is precluded by the law- of-the-case doctrine, see Hall, 91 Nev. at 315, 535 P.2d at 798, we are not convinced that postconviction counsel's failure to re-raise this issue fell outside of the wide range of professionally competent assistance.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pellegrini (David) v. State
As it is the law of the case that the prosecutor's challenged statements were SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th a 3 not improper, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975), Pellegrini has not shown that counsel was deficient in not objecting or that he was prejudiced by the adjudication of his prosecutorial misconduct claim under a more stringent appellate standard.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Price (Edmond) v. State
"The law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same," and the doctrine of the law of the case "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975 This court recognized the potential Brady problems when it ruled on the writ and Price cannot avoid that decision by attempting to present a more focused argument on this appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Price (Edmond) v. State
"The law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same," and the doctrine of the law of the case "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975 This court recognized the potential Brady problems when it ruled on the writ and Price cannot avoid that decision by attempting to present a more focused argument on this appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nelson (Michael) v. State
See Hooks v. State, 124 Nev. 48, 55 , 176 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2008) (noting that "[e]ven the omission of a canvass is not reversible error if it appears from the whole record that the defendant knew his rights and insisted upon representing himself' (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975) (discussing law-of-the-case doctrine).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patterson (Michael) v. State
That such a challenge lacked merit is the law of the case, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975), and Patterson has failed to show that counsel's performance was objectively deficient in not litigating a meritless motion more aggressively SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e or that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Antonetti (Joseph) v. State
These SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e claims were previously rejected by this court on the merits, see Antonetti v. State, Docket No. 42917, Order at 2-11, and further consideration of them is barred, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975) (explaining that reconsideration of claims denied on their merits is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine). 2 Antonetti also claimed the State improperly elicited hearsay testimony about an anonymous tip, the district court erred in not admitting bad act testimony about a State witness, and a sleeping juror deprived him …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kieren (Dennis) v. State
Kieren's remaining claims—that the district court erred in denying his new-trial motion on the basis of new evidence, that the district court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim's violent character, that the State committed misconduct in referring to a criminal charge against Kieren for which he was not convicted, and cumulative error at trial— were denied on direct appeal, Kieren, Docket No. 36345 (Order of Affirmance, February 8, 2002), and may not be relitigated pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez (Michael) v. State
We previously addressed this issue in Perez v. State, Docket No. 65475 (Order Denying Petition, May 1, 2014), and Perez is barred from relitigating this claim by the law- of-the-case doctrine, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moxley (John) v. State
To the extent that Moxley argues that the State improperly quantified the reasonable doubt standard in related argument, we previously determined that the State's comment was not error, Moxley v. State, Docket No. 47497 (Order of Affirmance, September 28, 2009), and relitigation is barred by the law of the case, Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Paez (Evier) v. State
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315 , 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Powell (Kitrich) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
Hall ix State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16 , 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). 3 Powell argues that the district court erred by relying upon procedural default rules because this court applies them inconsistently and in its discretion.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FRANKLIN L. HALL, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
7254.
Nevada Supreme Court.
May 21, 1975.
Horace R. Goff, State Public Defender, for'Appellant., Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; George E. Holt, District Attorney, of Clark County, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 179 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Nevada Supreme Court (4) · D. Nevada (1)
OPINION
Per Curiam:Appellant was charged with murder in early 1965. Before his plea was entered, his counsel requested a psychiatric examination. Upon receipt of a verbal report from the examining psychiatrist, a plea of not guilty was entered. Shortly thereafter, appellant changed his plea to guilty of second degree murder. Sentencing was delayed so that the trial judge could obtain a written report from the examining psychiatrist. On May 21,[*315] 1965, the trial judge had the report and referred to it while imposing a sentence of not less than 10 nor more than 50 years in the Nevada State Prison.
In his petition for post-conviction relief appellant contended that his plea of guilty was involuntarily made because he was mentally incompetent at that time to enter such a plea, and that the trial court erred in its failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of his competency. After a hearing, his petition for post-conviction relief was denied and this appeal ensued.
Although appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of NRS 177.335 [1] and identify previous court proceedings taken by him to secure relief from his conviction and sentence, our records indicate that for the second time this matter is before us. A detailed recitation of the facts of this case together with an addendum of the transcript of the proceedings in district court at the time appellant was sentenced on May 21, 1965, appear in Hall v. Warden, 83 Nev. 446, 434 P.2d 425 (1967). When the matter was previously before us, one of the issues raised was the voluntariness of appellant’s plea. Upon that record we determined that appellant’s guilty plea was made as a result of the “intelligent application of his own will to the problem,” and that “the record fails to support appellant’s contention that his change of plea was not voluntarily made.” 83 Nev. at 455, 456.
“The law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same.”' Walker v. State, 85 Nev. 337, 343, 455 P.2d 34 (1969); Graves v. State, 84 Nev. 262, 439 P.2d 476 (1968); State v. Loveless, 62 Nev. 312, 150 P.2d 1015 (1944).
Here, appellant attempts to revive the same issue presented in Hall v. Warden, supra. (More emphasis has now been placed upon the possibility of appellant’s mental incapacity, but all witnesses at the hearing on this petition for post-convictiou[*316] relief, including the psychiatrist, testified that he was competent at the time he entered his guilty plea.) The doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.
The order of the district court is affirmed.
1
NRS 177.335: “The petition shall identify the proceedings in which the petitioner was convicted, give the date of the entry of the final judgment complained of and clearly set forth the respects in which the-petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated. Affidavits, records or other evidence supporting its allegations shall be attached to the petition, unless the petition recites why they are not attached. The petition shall identify any previous state or federal court proceedings taken by the: petitioner to secure relief from his conviction or sentence. Argument, citations and discussion of authorities are unnécessary.”