Cluster 8086060
green
· 137 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 37 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Mack v. Williams (2019)
Ct. (Logan D.), 306 P.3d 369, 377 (Nev. 2013) (“This court has consistently relied upon the Supreme Court’s holdings interpreting the federal 23 Due Process Clause to define the fundamental liberties protected under Nevada’s due process clause.”).
“This court has consistently relied upon the Supreme Court’s holdings interpreting the federal 23 Due Process Clause to define the fundamental liberties protected under Nevada’s due process clause.”
green
State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.D. (2025)
Ct. (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 512 ; 306 P.3d 369, 383 (2013) (Nevada) (Party convicted as a juvenile and later required to register “failed to demonstrate, by the clearest proof, that [amendment’s] effect negates the Legislature’s intent to create a civil regulatory scheme.”); People ex rel.
Nevada
green
DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO (2025)
Ct. (Logan D.), 306 P.3d 369, 376 (2013); State v. Trosclair , 2011-2302 (La. 5/8/12), 89 So.3d 340, 350 .
green
Lotte-Lublin v. Cosby (2024)
Ct., 306 P.3d 369, 382 (Nev. 10 2013).
green
Lotte-Lublin v. Cosby (2024)
Ct., 306 P.3d 369, 382 (Nev. 24 2013).
green
Nev. Wildlife All. Vs. State, Dep'T Of Wildlife (2021)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 504 , 306 P.3d 369, 377 (2013).
green
In Re: A.H. (2020)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 507 , 306 P.3d 369, 379 (2013) (noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court); Silvar v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court
green
In Re: J.H.S., Iii (2020)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 507 , 306 P.3d 369, 379 (2013) (noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court); Silvar u.
noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court
green
In Re: A.B. (2020)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 507 , 306 P.3d 369, 379 (2013) (noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court); Silvar v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court
green
In Re: C.D.W. (2020)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 507 , 306 P.3d 369, 379 (2013) (noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court), and ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
noting that this court may decline to exercise its discretion to hear a constitutional issue not litigated in the juvenile court
green
Williams Vs. Nev. Bd. Of Parole Comm'Rs (2019)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 519-20 , 306 P.3d 369, 388 (2013) (determining that retroactive application of Assembly Bill 579 to juvenile sex offenders did not violate the 'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary.
determining that retroactive application of Assembly Bill 579 to juvenile sex offenders did not violate the 'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c
green
Vonseydewitz (Frederick) Vs. State (2019)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 519-20 , 306 P.3d 369, 388 (2013) (determining that retroactive application of A.B. 579 to juvenile sex offenders did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions); ACLU of Neu. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1053-54 , 'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response from the State is not necessary.
determining that retroactive application of A.B. 579 to juvenile sex offenders did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions
green
in Interest of T.B (2019)
Court, 306 P.3d 369, 387 (Nev. 2013) (same). ¶ 33 The remaining factors, however, support the conclusion that requiring automatic lifetime sex offender registration for juvenile offenses is a punishment. 17 ¶ 34 First, the effect of requiring a juvenile to register as a sex offender for life is reminiscent of traditional forms of punishment.
same
green
State of Iowa v. Lloyd Aschbrenner (2019)
Ct., 306 P.3d 369, 388 (Nev. 2013) (holding retroactive application of the sex offender registration statute to certain juveniles did not violate prohibitions on ex post facto punishment); State v. Meador, 785 N.W.2d 886 , 889–90 (N.D. 2010) (holding that the retroactive application of sexual offender registration requirements to an offender whose conviction for a sexual offense occurred before enactment of the registration requirements did not violate the constitutional pro…
holding retroactive application of the sex offender registration statute to certain juveniles did not violate prohibitions on ex post facto punishment
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green
IN RE: N.J., A MINOR CHILD (2018)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 508 , 306 P.3d 369, 380 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
internal citations omitted
green
IN RE: N.J., A MINOR CHILD (2018)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 508 , 306 P.3d 369, 380 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
internal citations omitted
green
DOE VS. STATE, LEGISLATURE OF THE 77TH SESSION (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 503 , 306 P.3d 369, 377 (2013).
green
DOE VS. STATE, LEGISLATURE OF THE 77TH SESSION (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 503, 306 P.3d 369, 377 (2013).
green
WILLIAMS (JESSICA) VS. STATE, DEP'T OF CORR. (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 508, 306 P.3d 369, 380 (2013).
green
WILLIAMS (JESSICA) VS. STATE, DEP'T OF CORR. (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 508 , 306 P.3d 369, 380 (2013).
green
Doe v. State, Legislature of the 77th Session (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 503 , 306 P.3d 369, 377 (2013).
green
A.J. VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green
A.J. VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497, 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green
Williams (Patrick) v. State (2017)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 501 , 306 P.3d 369, 375-76 (2013) (due process); Arata v. Faubion, 123 Nev. 153, 159 , 161 P.3d 244, 248 (2007) (both).
due process
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 497 , 306 P.3d 369, 373 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green
Alex Jordan Vaughn v. State (2017)
Ct. (Logan D.), 306 P.3d 369, 375-76 (Nev. 2013) (applying rational basis test to juvenile required to register as a sexual offender registration as no fundamental right at issue); United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1012 (9th Cir.2012) (same); In re J.W., 204 Ill.2d 50 , 272 Ill.Dec. 561 , 787 N.E.2d 747, 757 (2003) (same); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 , 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (concluding reputation alone, without being coupled with some m…
applying rational basis test to juvenile required to register as a sexual offender registration as no fundamental right at issue
The court described Nevada’s sex offender registration statute as follows: “Under Nevada’s . . . law, a ‘sex offender’ is defined to include any person who, after July 1, 1956, has been adjudicated delinquent for sexual assault, battery with the intent to commit sexual assault, lewdness with a child, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses, so long as the offender was 14 years or older at the time of the offense.” 306 P.3d at 374 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
green
Colvin (Michael) v. State (2016)
Op. 52, 306 P.3d 369, 375 (2013).
green
Colvin (Michael) v. State (2016)
Op. 52, 306 P.3d 369, 375 (2013).
green
Shaw v. Patton (2016)
Court (Logan D.), — Nev. —, 306 P.3d 369, 388 (2013) (holding that a state sex-offender law was not punitive when only one factor indicated a punitive effect); DeVita v. District of Columbia, 74 A.3d 714, 721 (D.C.2013) (holding that proof of a single Smith factor “is certainly not enough to provide ‘the clearest proof ” of a punitive effect).
holding that a state sex-offender law was not punitive when only one factor indicated a punitive effect
green
S. M. v. State, Dept. of Public Safety (2015)
Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. , , 306 P.3d 369, 390-92 (2013) (Cherry, J. dissenting).
Cherry, J. dissenting
green
Villegas (David) v. State (2014)
Court, 129 Nev. , n.9, 306 P.3d 369 , 385 n.9 (2013) (citing Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673 , 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987)).
citing Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673 , 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987)