25 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Azbill v. Stategreen2 sentences2019As a follow-up to Ford asking the eyewitness to the shooting about her proximity to it, the district court asked the witness to describe where Ford and the victim were "at the time that [Ford] shot [the victim]." "A trial judge has the right to examine witnesses for the purpose of establishing the truth or clarifying testimony, but in doing so he must not become an advocate for either party, nor conduct himself in such a manner as to give the jury an impression of his feelings." Azbill v. State, 88 Nev. 240, 249 , 495 P.2d 1064, 1070 (1972). 2019As a follow-up to Ford asking the eyewitness to the shooting about her proximity to it, the district court asked the witness to describe where Ford and the victim were "at the time that [Ford] shot [the victim]." "A trial judge has the right to examine witnesses for the purpose of establishing the truth or clarifying testimony, but in doing so he must not become an advocate for either party, nor conduct himself in such a manner as to give the jury an impression of his feelings." Azbill v. State, 88 Nev. 240, 249 , 495 P.2d 1064, 1070 (1972). | 2 | 2 |
Summitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In Summitt, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed this exception, holding a district court committed reversible error by denying a defendant's motion to admit evidence of the six-year-old victim's prior sexual knowledge. 101 Nev. at 160, 697 P.2d at 1375. 2015In Summitt, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed this exception, holding a district court committed reversible error by denying a defendant's motion to admit evidence of the six-year-old victim's prior sexual knowledge. 101 Nev. at 160, 697 P.2d at 1375. | 1 | 5 |
Charles C.L.A. v. State Division of Child & Family Services, Department of Health & Human Resourcesgreen1 sentence2022See In re Parental Rights as to C.C.A., 128 Nev. 166, 170 , 273 P.3d 852 , 854- 55 (2012) (requiring the district court to identify the factual bases for finding that the statutory grounds for termination existed). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Parental Rights as to Ccagreen1 sentence2022See In re Parental Rights as to C.C.A., 128 Nev. 166, 170 , 273 P.3d 852 , 854- 55 (2012) (requiring the district court to identify the factual bases for finding that the statutory grounds for termination existed). | 1 | 1 |
NOLM, LLC v. County of Clarkgreen2 sentences2022See id. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029 (reviewing de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment); see also Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev., Adv. 2022See id. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029 (reviewing de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment); see also Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev., Adv. | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Safeway, Inc.green2 sentences2022See id. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029 (reviewing de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment); see also Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev., Adv. 2022See id. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029 (reviewing de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment); see also Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev., Adv. | 1 | 1 |
Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Mooregreen2 sentences2021Because appellant did not object to the district court's decision to conduct the initial Batson discussion off the record, we review appellant's argument for plain error.3 See Jerernias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 50-51, 412 P.3d 43, 49 (2018) (recognizing that even alleged structural errors must be objected to in district court in order to properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299-300, 757 P.2d 361, 362-63 (1988) (holding that a failure to object in district court precludes appellate review absent "plain error," which is an err 2021Because appellant did not object to the district court's decision to conduct the initial Batson discussion off the record, we review appellant's argument for plain error.3 See Jerernias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 50-51, 412 P.3d 43, 49 (2018) (recognizing that even alleged structural errors must be objected to in district court in order to properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299-300, 757 P.2d 361, 362-63 (1988) (holding that a failure to object in district court precludes appellate review absent "plain error," which is an err | 1 | 1 |
Jeremias v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Because appellant did not object to the district court's decision to conduct the initial Batson discussion off the record, we review appellant's argument for plain error.3 See Jerernias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 50-51, 412 P.3d 43, 49 (2018) (recognizing that even alleged structural errors must be objected to in district court in order to properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299-300, 757 P.2d 361, 362-63 (1988) (holding that a failure to object in district court precludes appellate review absent "plain error," which is an err 2021Because appellant did not object to the district court's decision to conduct the initial Batson discussion off the record, we review appellant's argument for plain error.3 See Jerernias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50-51, 412 P.3d 43, 49 (2018) (recognizing that even alleged structural errors must be objected to in district court in order to properly preserve them for appellate review); see also Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299-300 , 757 P.2d 361, 362-63 (1988) (holding that a failure to object in district court precludes appellate review absent "plain error," which is an e | 1 | 1 |
McLellan v. Stategreen2 sentences2020"We review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion." Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267 , 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008). 2020"We review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion." Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267 , 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2020Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599 , 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (recognizing that this court may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record). 2020Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599 , 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (recognizing that this court may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record). | 1 | 1 |
Andrews v. Harley Davidson, Inc.green2 sentences2020See Andrews v. Harley Davidson, Inc., 106 Nev. 533, 539 , 796 P.2d 1092, 1096 (1990) (explaining that rebuttal evidence is that which explains or contradicts new matters raised during the defendant's case-in-chief). 2020See Andrews v. Harley Davidson, Inc., 106 Nev. 533, 539 , 796 P.2d 1092, 1096 (1990) (explaining that rebuttal evidence is that which explains or contradicts new matters raised during the defendant's case-in-chief). | 1 | 1 |
McNair v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See NRS 484E.010; McNair, 108 Nev. at 56 , 825 P.2d at 573 ([I]it is the jury's function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses."). 2 Admission of evidence McDermott argues that the district court committed reversible error in admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence. 2020See NRS 484E.010; McNair, 108 Nev. at 56 , 825 P.2d at 573 ([I]it is the jury's function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses."). 2 Admission of evidence McDermott argues that the district court committed reversible error in admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
BOONSONG JITNAN v. Olivergreen2 sentences2020See id. at 434 , 254 P.3d at 630 (rejecting an argument that the iFor this same reason, we reject appellants' argument that the district court committed reversible error by excluding Dr. Schapira's rebuttal opinions. 2020See id. at 434 , 254 P.3d at 630 (rejecting an argument that the iFor this same reason, we reject appellants' argument that the district court committed reversible error by excluding Dr. Schapira's rebuttal opinions. | 1 | 1 |
Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Springfieldgreen1 sentence2018Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Springfield, 126 N.E. 739, 744 (Ill. 1920)'s definition of "reasonable and just" or appellant's subjective definition of what is unduly discriminatory. 6 1n the absence of a specific statutory mandate, we are unable to conclude that appellant's due process rights were violated by being permitted to speak only for three minutes at the hearings or by respondent allegedly ignoring appellant's opinions that the rate structures were unjust and unreasonable as well as unduly discriminatory. | 1 | 1 |
Angle v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381 , 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998) (stating sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)). sBecause we reverse Linda's convictions, "we need not consider her remaining issues on appeal." Angle, 113 Nev. at 763-64 , 942 P.2d at 182 . 2017See Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381 , 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998) (stating sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)). sBecause we reverse Linda's convictions, "we need not consider her remaining issues on appeal." Angle, 113 Nev. at 763-64 , 942 P.2d at 182 . | 1 | 1 |
Origel-Candido v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381 , 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998) (stating sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)). sBecause we reverse Linda's convictions, "we need not consider her remaining issues on appeal." Angle, 113 Nev. at 763-64 , 942 P.2d at 182 . 2017See Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381 , 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998) (stating sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)). sBecause we reverse Linda's convictions, "we need not consider her remaining issues on appeal." Angle, 113 Nev. at 763-64 , 942 P.2d at 182 . | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Rowlandgreen2 sentences2016Safety v. Rowland, 107 Nev. 475, 479 , 814 P.2d 80, 83 (1991). 2016Safety v. Rowland, 107 Nev. 475, 479 , 814 P.2d 80, 83 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Brass v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Brass v. State, 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 145 (2012). 2014See Brass v. State, 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 145 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., LeBlanc, 924 P.2d at 442 . 13 See, e.g., Jones v. U.S., 620 A.2d 249, 251-52 (D.C. 1993); State v. Powell, 608 A.2d 45, 46-47 (Vt. 1992); United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346-47 (2d Cir. 1978). 14 As noted, Green asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its use of the “acquittal first” approach. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cecil Lovell Jacksongreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., LeBlanc, 924 P.2d at 442 . 13 See, e.g., Jones v. U.S., 620 A.2d 249, 251-52 (D.C. 1993); State v. Powell, 608 A.2d 45, 46-47 (Vt. 1992); United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346-47 (2d Cir. 1978). 14 As noted, Green asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its use of the “acquittal first” approach. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Powellgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., LeBlanc, 924 P.2d at 442 . 13 See, e.g., Jones v. U.S., 620 A.2d 249, 251-52 (D.C. 1993); State v. Powell, 608 A.2d 45, 46-47 (Vt. 1992); United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346-47 (2d Cir. 1978). 14 As noted, Green asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its use of the “acquittal first” approach. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Andrew Tsanasgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., LeBlanc, 924 P.2d at 442 . 13 See, e.g., Jones v. U.S., 620 A.2d 249, 251-52 (D.C. 1993); State v. Powell, 608 A.2d 45, 46-47 (Vt. 1992); United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346-47 (2d Cir. 1978). 14 As noted, Green asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its use of the “acquittal first” approach. | 1 | 1 |
State v. LeBlancgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., LeBlanc, 924 P.2d at 442 . 13 See, e.g., Jones v. U.S., 620 A.2d 249, 251-52 (D.C. 1993); State v. Powell, 608 A.2d 45, 46-47 (Vt. 1992); United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346-47 (2d Cir. 1978). 14 As noted, Green asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its use of the “acquittal first” approach. | 1 | 1 |
Tinch v. Stategreen2 sentences2000In the context of a criminal case, we have held that, prior to the admission of evidence of other wrongs, the district court must conduct a hearing on the record outside the presence of the jury and determine: “(1) that the evidence is relevant to the crime charged; (2) that the other act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the probative value of the other act is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Qualls v. State, 114 Nev. 900, 902 , 961 P.2d 765, 766 (1998) (citing Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176 , 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997); Armstrong 2000In the context of a criminal case, we have held that, prior to the admission of evidence of other wrongs, the district court must conduct a hearing on the record outside the presence of the jury and determine: “(1) that the evidence is relevant to the crime charged; (2) that the other act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the probative value of the other act is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Qualls v. State, 114 Nev. 900, 902 , 961 P.2d 765, 766 (1998) (citing Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176 , 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997); Armstrong | 1 | 1 |
Qualls v. Stategreen2 sentences2000In the context of a criminal case, we have held that, prior to the admission of evidence of other wrongs, the district court must conduct a hearing on the record outside the presence of the jury and determine: “(1) that the evidence is relevant to the crime charged; (2) that the other act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the probative value of the other act is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Qualls v. State, 114 Nev. 900, 902 , 961 P.2d 765, 766 (1998) (citing Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176 , 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997); Armstrong 2000In the context of a criminal case, we have held that, prior to the admission of evidence of other wrongs, the district court must conduct a hearing on the record outside the presence of the jury and determine: “(1) that the evidence is relevant to the crime charged; (2) that the other act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the probative value of the other act is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Qualls v. State, 114 Nev. 900, 902 , 961 P.2d 765, 766 (1998) (citing Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176 , 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997); Armstrong | 1 | 1 |
Armstrong v. Stategreen2 sentences2000In the context of a criminal case, we have held that, prior to the admission of evidence of other wrongs, the district court must conduct a hearing on the record outside the presence of the jury and determine: “(1) that the evidence is relevant to the crime charged; (2) that the other act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the probative value of the other act is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Qualls v. State, 114 Nev. 900, 902 , 961 P.2d 765, 766 (1998) (citing Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176 , 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997); Armstrong 2000In the context of a criminal case, we have held that, prior to the admission of evidence of other wrongs, the district court must conduct a hearing on the record outside the presence of the jury and determine: “(1) that the evidence is relevant to the crime charged; (2) that the other act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the probative value of the other act is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Qualls v. State, 114 Nev. 900, 902 , 961 P.2d 765, 766 (1998) (citing Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176 , 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997); Armstrong | 1 | 1 |
| Horvath v. Burtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holiday
red
2 sentences2016SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A en Holiday, 585 N.W.2d at 71 n.1, these cases are in the minority of jurisdictions, which is not enough to demonstrate that the district court committed reversible error. 2016While some cases have extended the overbreadth doctrine to intimate association, see, e.g., Holiday, 585 N.W.2d at 71 n.1, these cases are in the minority of jurisdictions, which is not enough to demonstrate that the district court committed reversible error. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Crawford v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 750 , 121 P.3d at SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10) I947A 2 586. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2012OPINION By the Court, Douglas, J.: In this appeal, we consider whether a district court committed reversible error by dismissing a prospective juror before conducting a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and whether there was sufficient evidence to support a kidnapping conviction. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Longoria v. State
green
2 sentences2009In reversing the first-degree murder conviction in Longoria v. State, 99 Nev. 754 , 670 P.2d 939 (1983), this court held that the district court committed reversible error by permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about his alleged commission of attempted murder in a prior incident. 2009In reversing the first-degree murder conviction in Longoria v. State, 99 Nev. 754 , 670 P.2d 939 (1983), this court held that the district court committed reversible error by permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about his alleged commission of attempted murder in a prior incident. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Wheeler v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.