17 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alabama v. Whitegreen2 sentences2015Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 330- 31 (1990) (applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an anonymous informant's tip established reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop); see also State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170, 1173-74 (2006) (explaining that to assess whether an investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, courts look to the totality of the COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 29 (0) 19475 circumstances). 2015Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330- 31 (1990) (applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an anonymous informant's tip established reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop); see also State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170, 1173-74 (2006) (explaining that to assess whether an investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, courts look to the totality of the COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 29 (0) 19475 circumstances). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Rincongreen2 sentences2015Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 330- 31 (1990) (applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an anonymous informant's tip established reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop); see also State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170, 1173-74 (2006) (explaining that to assess whether an investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, courts look to the totality of the COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 29 (0) 19475 circumstances). 2015Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330- 31 (1990) (applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an anonymous informant's tip established reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop); see also State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170, 1173-74 (2006) (explaining that to assess whether an investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, courts look to the totality of the COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 29 (0) 19475 circumstances). | 3 | 3 |
Passama v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 Nev. 309 , 320, 371 P.3d 1036 . 1044 (2016) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to the reliability of pretrial identification procedures); Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598 , 603, 354 P.3d 1277 , 1281 (2015) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just); Harkins v. State, 1. 22 Nev. 974 , 987, 143 P.3d 706, 714 (2006) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a hearsay statement is testimonial for confrontation purposes); Doy 2023See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 Nev. 309 , 320, 371 P.3d 1036 . 1044 (2016) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to the reliability of pretrial identification procedures); Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598 , 603, 354 P.3d 1277 , 1281 (2015) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just); Harkins v. State, 1. 22 Nev. 974 , 987, 143 P.3d 706, 714 (2006) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a hearsay statement is testimonial for confrontation purposes); Doy | 2 | 4 |
Harkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 Nev. 309, 320, 371 P.3d 1036. 1044 (2016) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to the reliability of pretrial identification procedures); Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598, 603, 354 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2015) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just); Harkins v. State, 1.22 Nev. 974, 987, 143 P.3d 706, 714 (2006) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a hearsay statement is testimonial for confrontation purposes); Doyle v. 2023See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 Nev. 309 , 320, 371 P.3d 1036 . 1044 (2016) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to the reliability of pretrial identification procedures); Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598 , 603, 354 P.3d 1277 , 1281 (2015) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just); Harkins v. State, 1. 22 Nev. 974 , 987, 143 P.3d 706, 714 (2006) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a hearsay statement is testimonial for confrontation purposes); Doy | 2 | 2 |
Doyle v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 Nev. 309, 320, 371 P.3d 1036. 1044 (2016) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to the reliability of pretrial identification procedures); Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598, 603, 354 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2015) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just); Harkins v. State, 1.22 Nev. 974, 987, 143 P.3d 706, 714 (2006) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a hearsay statement is testimonial for confrontation purposes); Doyle v. 2023See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 Nev. 309 , 320, 371 P.3d 1036 . 1044 (2016) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to the reliability of pretrial identification procedures); Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598 , 603, 354 P.3d 1277 , 1281 (2015) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just); Harkins v. State, 1. 22 Nev. 974 , 987, 143 P.3d 706, 714 (2006) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a hearsay statement is testimonial for confrontation purposes); Doy | 2 | 2 |
Richard E. Barber, Chapter 7 Trustee for Ostrom-Martin, Inc. v. Golden Seed Company, Inc.green2 sentences2019See, Barber v. Golden Seed Co., 129 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 1997) (utilizing a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether fair market value of the assets transferred instead of looking to a dollar for dollar equivalent value of the assets). 2019See, Barber v. Golden Seed Co., 129 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 1997) (utilizing a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether fair market value of the assets transferred instead of looking to a dollar for dollar equivalent value of the assets). | 2 | 2 |
National Foundation for Cancer Research v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., Harold T. Hedgesgreen1 sentence2026Edwards & Sons, Inc., 821 F.2d 772, 775 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
In re Schwartzgreen1 sentence2024"As the name indicates, the test looks at all the surrounding circumstances of a purported temporary absence, including intent of the parties and duration of the absence, to assess whether the absence should be treated as a temporary departure from a putative home state." In re Marriage of Schwartz & Battini, 410 P.3d 319, 325 (Or. | 1 | 1 |
Antonetti v. Hon. Westerhausen Klingergreen2 sentences2024However, in Antonetti v. Westerhausen, the Arizona Court of Appeals examined how other jurisdictions evaluate whether an absence is "temporary" and found that states generally use one of three tests: (1) the duration test, (2) the intent test, or (3) the totality of the circumstances test. 523 P.3d 969, 973-74 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). 2024Antonetti, 523 P.3d at 974 . | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Rosario GARIBAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellantgreen1 sentence2020As part of the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, Patel urges us to apply the six-factor inquiry set forth by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Garibay regarding the admissibility of non- native English speaker confessions, which he contends weighs against the district court's conclusion. 143 F.3d 534, 538 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Gonzales v. State, 131 Nev. 481 , 489, 354 P.3d 654 , 659 (Ct. App. 2015) (examining the Garibay framework). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Freesegreen2 sentences2014See State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1104 , 13 P.3d 442, 447 (2000) (holding that we apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test in reviewing the validity of a guilty plea). 2014See State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1104 , 13 P.3d 442, 447 (2000) (holding that we apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test in reviewing the validity of a guilty plea). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Earl Williams v. United States of America, Gerald Coleman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011See Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Edwards, 469 F.2d at 1367 -68 n.5; Williams v. United States, 419 F.2d 740, 746 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2011If upon the poll there is not unanimous concurrence, the jury may be directed to retire for further deliberation or may be discharged.”). 3 We note that this approach is consistent with White v. State, 95 Nev. 881, 883-84 , 603 P.2d 1063, 1064-65 (1979), where we rejected Brasfield and adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining whether a court’s inquiry into the numerical division of a jury during deliberations required reversal. 4 Although several courts have determined that the trial court may question a dissenting juror if it is apparent that the juror was confused by the 2011If upon the poll there is not unanimous concurrence, the jury may be directed to retire for further deliberation or may be discharged.”). 3 We note that this approach is consistent with White v. State, 95 Nev. 881, 883-84 , 603 P.2d 1063, 1064-65 (1979), where we rejected Brasfield and adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining whether a court’s inquiry into the numerical division of a jury during deliberations required reversal. 4 Although several courts have determined that the trial court may question a dissenting juror if it is apparent that the juror was confused by the | 1 | 1 |
Lucien v. Amos v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011See Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Edwards, 469 F.2d at 1367 -68 n.5; Williams v. United States, 419 F.2d 740, 746 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences1997See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-227 [ 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-2048 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 ] (1973). 1997See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-227 [ 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-2048 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 ] (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Horace Lamar Edwards and Ronald Clifton
green
1 sentence2011See Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Edwards, 469 F.2d at 1367 -68 n.5; Williams v. United States, 419 F.2d 740, 746 (D.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bryant v. State
green
2 sentences2000In Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268 , 721 P.2d 364 (1986), we urged trial courts to be as complete as possible in conducting a plea canvass, but stressed that the failure to utter talismanic phrases will not invalidate a plea where a totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the plea was freely, knowingly and voluntarily made. [W]hile we believe trial courts should in all circumstances conduct sufficient and thorough plea canvasses, as an appellate court reviewing the validity of a plea, we cannot be constrained to look only to the technical sufficiency of a plea canvass to determine whethe 2000In Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268 , 721 P.2d 364 (1986), we urged trial courts to be as complete as possible in conducting a plea canvass, but stressed that the failure to utter talismanic phrases will not invalidate a plea where a totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the plea was freely, knowingly and voluntarily made. [W]hile we believe trial courts should in all circumstances conduct sufficient and thorough plea canvasses, as an appellate court reviewing the validity of a plea, we cannot be constrained to look only to the technical sufficiency of a plea canvass to determine whethe | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Blackburn v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1992Id. at 214 , 735 P.2d at 323 . 1992Id. 103 Nev. at 214 , 735 P.2d at 323 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Taylor v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
green
2 sentences1986Although this court has in the past relied upon the totality of the circumstances test in reviewing the validity of guilty pleas, see, e.g., Taylor v. Warden, 96 Nev. 272 , 607 P.2d 587 (1980), we have not had occasion to discuss in detail how this test should be applied. 1986Although this court has in the past relied upon the totality of the circumstances test in reviewing the validity of guilty pleas, see, e.g., Taylor v. Warden, 96 Nev. 272 , 607 P.2d 587 (1980), we have not had occasion to discuss in detail how this test should be applied. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.