Mlle doctrine in Nevada

2021Hall 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).

2021Hall 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).

2018She relies on NAC 284.798, which provides that "Mlle hearing officer shall make no assumptions of innocence or guilt but shall be guided in his or her decision by the weight of the evidence as it appears to him or her at the hearing," and further cites Knapp, wherein this court stated, "Generally, a hearing officer does not defer to the appointing authority's decision." 111 Nev. at 424 , 892 P.2d at 577 (noting "[al hearing officer's task is to determine whether there is evidence showing that a dismissal would serve the good of the public service").

2018She relies on NAC 284.798, which provides that "Mlle hearing officer shall make no assumptions of innocence or guilt but shall be guided in his or her decision by the weight of the evidence as it appears to him or her at the hearing," and further cites Knapp, wherein this court stated, "Generally, a hearing officer does not defer to the appointing authority's decision." 111 Nev. at 424 , 892 P.2d at 577 (noting "[al hearing officer's task is to determine whether there is evidence showing that a dismissal would serve the good of the public service").

2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709,

2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709,

2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709,

2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709,

2018However, "Mlle doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action which has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594, 596 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981).

2018However, "Mlle doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action which has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594, 596 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981).

2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709,

2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709,

2024Cf. Holmes v. Buss, 506 F.3d 576, 579 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing competency in the capital habeas context and noting that "Mlle test is unitary but its application will depend on the circumstances.

2021See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009) (reviewing a district court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion); Mitchell v. State, 114 Nev. 1417, 1428 , 971 P.2d 813, 820 (1998) (reiterating that "a sentencing court may not punish a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights," and "Mlle defendant has the burden to provide evidence that the district court sentenced him vindictively"), overruled on other grounds by Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190-91 , 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).

2021See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009) (reviewing a district court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion); Mitchell v. State, 114 Nev. 1417, 1428 , 971 P.2d 813, 820 (1998) (reiterating that "a sentencing court may not punish a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights," and "Mlle defendant has the burden to provide evidence that the district court sentenced him vindictively"), overruled on other grounds by Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190-91 , 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).

2021See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009) (reviewing a district court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion); Mitchell v. State, 114 Nev. 1417, 1428 , 971 P.2d 813, 820 (1998) (reiterating that "a sentencing court may not punish a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights," and "Mlle defendant has the burden to provide evidence that the district court sentenced him vindictively"), overruled on other grounds by Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190-91 , 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).

2021See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009) (reviewing a district court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion); Mitchell v. State, 114 Nev. 1417, 1428 , 971 P.2d 813, 820 (1998) (reiterating that "a sentencing court may not punish a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights," and "Mlle defendant has the burden to provide evidence that the district court sentenced him vindictively"), overruled on other grounds by Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190-91 , 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).

2021See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009) (reviewing a district court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion); Mitchell v. State, 114 Nev. 1417, 1428 , 971 P.2d 813, 820 (1998) (reiterating that "a sentencing court may not punish a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights," and "Mlle defendant has the burden to provide evidence that the district court sentenced him vindictively"), overruled on other grounds by Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190-91 , 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).

2021See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348 , 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009) (reviewing a district court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion); Mitchell v. State, 114 Nev. 1417, 1428 , 971 P.2d 813, 820 (1998) (reiterating that "a sentencing court may not punish a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights," and "Mlle defendant has the burden to provide evidence that the district court sentenced him vindictively"), overruled on other grounds by Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190-91 , 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005).

2021And "Mlle presumption SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A 4010 •4`w.' • - a: of [legal] sanity operates most critically, of course, at the time the offense is committed." Ford v. State, 102 Nev. 126, 135, 717 P.2d 27, 33 (1986).

2021And "Mlle presumption SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A 4010 •4`w.' • - a: of [legal] sanity operates most critically, of course, at the time the offense is committed." Ford v. State, 102 Nev. 126, 135, 717 P.2d 27, 33 (1986).

2021Although "Mlle hearing officer shall liberally construe the pleadings and disregard any defects which do not affect the substantial rights of any party," NAC 679B.245(2), and "proceedings before administrative agencies may be subject to more relaxed procedural and evidentiary rules, due process guarantees of fundamental fairness still apply," Dutchess, 124 Nev. at 711, 191 P.3d at 1166 (footnote omitted).

2021Although "Mlle hearing officer shall liberally construe the pleadings and disregard any defects which do not affect the substantial rights of any party," NAC 679B.245(2), and "proceedings before administrative agencies may be subject to more relaxed procedural and evidentiary rules, due process guarantees of fundamental fairness still apply," Dutchess, 124 Nev. at 711, 191 P.3d at 1166 (footnote omitted).

2020In Arizona v. California, the United States Supreme Court recognized that "M ertainty of rights is particularly important with respect to water rights in the Western United States," and "Mlle doctrine of prior appropriation . . . is itself largely a product of the compelling need for certainty in the holding and use of water rights." 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983); see United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Participants in water adjudications are entitled to rely on the finality of decrees as much as, if not more than, parties to other types of civil jud

2020In Arizona v. California, the United States Supreme Court recognized that "M ertainty of rights is particularly important with respect to water rights in the Western United States," and "Mlle doctrine of prior appropriation . . . is itself largely a product of the compelling need for certainty in the holding and use of water rights." 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983); see United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Participants in water adjudications are entitled to rely on the finality of decrees as much as, if not more than, parties to other types of civil jud

2020See Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 368 , 252 P.3d 206, 208 (2011) (reviewing issues related to standing de novo and acknowledging that "Mlle inquiry into whether a party is a real party in interest overlaps with the question of standine); see also NRCP 52(c) (allowing the district court in a bench trial to enter judgment on partial findings at the close of the plaintiffs evidence); Certified First Prot.

2020See Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 368 , 252 P.3d 206, 208 (2011) (reviewing issues related to standing de novo and acknowledging that "Mlle inquiry into whether a party is a real party in interest overlaps with the question of standine); see also NRCP 52(c) (allowing the district court in a bench trial to enter judgment on partial findings at the close of the plaintiffs evidence); Certified First Prot.

2020In Arizona v. California, the United States Supreme Court recognized that "M ertainty of rights is particularly important with respect to water rights in the Western United States," and "Mlle doctrine of prior appropriation . . . is itself largely a product of the compelling need for certainty in the holding and use of water rights." 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983); see United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Participants in water adjudications are entitled to rely on the finality of decrees as much as, if not more than, parties to other types of civil jud

2020In Arizona v. California, the United States Supreme Court recognized that "M ertainty of rights is particularly important with respect to water rights in the Western United States," and "Mlle doctrine of prior appropriation . . . is itself largely a product of the compelling need for certainty in the holding and use of water rights." 460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983); see United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Participants in water adjudications are entitled to rely on the finality of decrees as much as, if not more than, parties to other types of civil jud

2015Immunity at common law At common law, "Mlle immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings was well established." Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 330-31 (footnote omitted) (citing Cutler v. Dixon (1585) 76 Eng.