Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1929–1992 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Laursen v. Stategreen2 sentences1992In Laursen v. State, 97 Nev. 568, 570 , 634 P.2d 1230, 1231 (1981), we summarized the process of admitting a possibly coerced statement as follows: Nevada follows the Massachusetts rule when the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement is put in issue. 1992In Laursen v. State, 97 Nev. 568, 570 , 634 P.2d 1230, 1231 (1981), we summarized the process of admitting a possibly coerced statement as follows: Nevada follows the Massachusetts rule when the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement is put in issue. | 1 | 1 |
Certain-Teed Products Corp. v. Second Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences1989See Certain-Teed *716 Prods. v. District Court, 87 Nev. 18, 21 , 479 P.2d 781, 783 , (1971); see also Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 , 462-63 n.1 (1965) (in federal diversity action, service of process was governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1), permitting service by delivery of requisite papers to defendant’s wife at defendant’s usual abode, not by Massachusetts rule requiring personal in hand delivery). 1989See Certain-Teed *716 Prods. v. District Court, 87 Nev. 18, 21 , 479 P.2d 781, 783 , (1971); see also Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 , 462-63 n.1 (1965) (in federal diversity action, service of process was governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1), permitting service by delivery of requisite papers to defendant’s wife at defendant’s usual abode, not by Massachusetts rule requiring personal in hand delivery). | 1 | 1 |
Hanna v. Plumergreen1 sentence1989See Certain-Teed *716 Prods. v. District Court, 87 Nev. 18, 21 , 479 P.2d 781, 783 , (1971); see also Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 , 462-63 n.1 (1965) (in federal diversity action, service of process was governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1), permitting service by delivery of requisite papers to defendant’s wife at defendant’s usual abode, not by Massachusetts rule requiring personal in hand delivery). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carlson v. State
green
2 sentences1974In the case of Carlson v. State, 84 Nev. 534 , 445 P.2d 157 (1968), Nevada adopted the Massachusetts rule regarding the admissibility of confessions. 1974In the case of Carlson v. State, 84 Nev. 534 , 445 P.2d 157 (1968), Nevada adopted the Massachusetts rule regarding the admissibility of confessions. | 2 | 1974–1981 |
McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital
green
1 sentence1929The first case in this country which is supposed to sustain the contention of appellant, and which is the foundation for the Massachusetts rule, is that of McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432 , 21 Am. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.