14 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1968–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, 2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, | 3 | 3 |
Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Browngreen2 sentences2018See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52 , 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) ("A point not urged in the trial court, unless it goes to the jurisdiction of that court, is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal."). 2018See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52 , 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) ("A point not urged in the trial court, unless it goes to the jurisdiction of that court, is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal."). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Heathgreen2 sentences2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, 2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, | 3 | 3 |
McCracken v. Coreygreen2 sentences2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, 2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, | 3 | 3 |
Dail v. Stategreen2 sentences2018As in Dail, "we decline to require that a criminal trial be conducted prior to a probation revocation hearing." Dail, 96 Nev. 439-40, 610 P.2d at 1196 (emphasis added). 2018As in Dail, "we decline to require that a criminal trial be conducted prior to a probation revocation hearing." Dail, 96 Nev. 439 -40, 610 P.2d at 1196 (emphasis added). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Beginsgreen2 sentences2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, 2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, | 3 | 3 |
Halverson v. Hardcastlegreen2 sentences2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, 2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, | 3 | 3 |
Florida v. Nixongreen2 sentences2019See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 192 (2004) ("[C]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for attempting to impress the [fact finder] with his candor and his unwillingness to engage in 'a useless charade."). 2019See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 192 (2004) ("[C]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for attempting to impress the [fact finder] with his candor and his unwillingness to engage in 'a useless charade."). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Colemangreen2 sentences2018That burden is "substantially lightened if the prosecution is allowed to take advantage of the defendant's testimony at a prior probation revocation hearing." Id. 2018Coleman, 533 P.2d at 1042 . | 1 | 3 |
Barker v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, 2018Therefore, we join our sister courts in adopting a rule to limit the use of a probationer's testimony given at a probation revocation hearing 5 See id. at 438, 610 P.2d at 1194-95 (listing jurisdictions that had adopted use and derivative use immunity for a probationer's testimony or the option of proceeding with the criminal trial before the revocation hearing); see also McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980) (providing for an exclusionary rule of evidence or testimony presented at a probation revocation hearing and any "fruits of the . . . revocation hearing"); State v. Boyd, | 1 | 3 |
State v. Samplegreen2 sentences2021"In reviewing a district court's resolution of a motion to suppress, we review its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo." State v. Sample, 134 Nev. 169, 171, 414 P.3d 814, 816 (2018).2 First, we consider the initial safety sweep. 2021"In reviewing a district court's resolution of a motion to suppress, we review its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo." State v. Sample, 134 Nev. 169 , 171, 414 P.3d 814, 816 (2018).2 First, we consider the initial safety sweep. | 1 | 1 |
Kirkpatrick v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Kirkpatrick v. State, 122 Nev. 846, 848 , 137 P.3d 1193, 1194 (2006). 2011Kirkpatrick v. State, 122 Nev. 846, 848 , 137 P.3d 1193, 1194 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences1997Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1761-62 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). 1997Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Virginia Consuelo-Gonzalezgreen2 sentences1980Except in a situation in which the state institutes revocation proceedings as a vehicle for an investigation directed solely toward obtaining information to be used in a subsequent criminal trial, United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 267 (9th Cir. 1975), or a situation where the proceedings were commenced without sufficient evidence to support the probation violation charge, Ryan v. State of Montana, 580 F.2d at 991 , we decline to require that a criminal trial be conducted prior to a probation revocation hearing. 1980Except in a situation in which the state institutes revocation proceedings as a vehicle for an investigation directed solely toward obtaining information to be used in a subsequent criminal trial, United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 267 (9th Cir.1975), or a situation where the proceedings were commenced without sufficient evidence to support the probation violation charge, Ryan v. State of Montana, 580 F.2d at 991 , we decline to require that a criminal trial be conducted prior to a probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 1 |
James J. Welsh v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Donald E. Ryan v. State of Montana
green
2 sentences1980Except in a situation in which the state institutes revocation proceedings as a vehicle for an investigation directed solely toward obtaining information to be used in a subsequent criminal trial, United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 267 (9th Cir. 1975), or a situation where the proceedings were commenced without sufficient evidence to support the probation violation charge, Ryan v. State of Montana, 580 F.2d at 991 , we decline to require that a criminal trial be conducted prior to a probation revocation hearing. 1980Except in a situation in which the state institutes revocation proceedings as a vehicle for an investigation directed solely toward obtaining information to be used in a subsequent criminal trial, United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 267 (9th Cir.1975), or a situation where the proceedings were commenced without sufficient evidence to support the probation violation charge, Ryan v. State of Montana, 580 F.2d at 991 , we decline to require that a criminal trial be conducted prior to a probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In the Matter of Ratzlaff
green
1 sentence1979Cf. Matter of Ratzlaff, 564 P.2d 1312 (Mont. 1977); State v. Eckley, 579 P.2d 291 (Or.App. 1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Eckley
green
1 sentence1979Cf. Matter of Ratzlaff, 564 P.2d 1312 (Mont. 1977); State v. Eckley, 579 P.2d 291 (Or.App. 1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Powell v. Sheriff, Clark County
green
2 sentences1975In support of this contention he cites Powell v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 684 , 462 P.2d 756 (1969) and In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). 1975In support of this contention he cites Powell v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 684 , 462 P.2d 756 (1969) and In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
In Re GAULT
green
1 sentence1975In support of this contention he cites Powell v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 684 , 462 P.2d 756 (1969) and In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Shum v. Fogliani
green
2 sentences1972Beginning with Shum v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 156 , 413 P.2d 495 (1966), this court consistently has ruled that an indigent person on probation is not entitled to appointed counsel at a revocation hearing if sentence already had been imposed for his underlying felony conviction, but the execution thereof suspended during good behavior on probation. 1972Beginning with Shum v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 156 , 413 P.2d 495 (1966), this court consistently has ruled that an indigent person on probation is not entitled to appointed counsel at a revocation hearing if sentence already had been imposed for his underlying felony conviction, but the execution thereof suspended during good behavior on probation. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Mempa v. Rhay
green
1 sentence1969Mempa v. Rhay, supra. Since, in Nevada sentencing does not happen at that time, we adhere to the belief that a probationer does not have a right under the Sixth Amendment to have appointed counsel present. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Savorgnan v. United States
green
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Griffin v. United States
neutral
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Bennett v. United States
green
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Crowe v. United States
green
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Black Diamond Lines, Inc. v. Pioneer Import Corp. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Fife v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a 1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Dorsey v. United States
green
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Trembois v. Standard Railway Equipment Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Hodges v. Peoples Bank
green
1 sentence1968“At first blush, the foregoing language might be accepted as holding that a federal probationer, such as Mr. Hartsell, who admits in a probation revocation hearing the violation of, or is found judicially to have violated, the conditions of his probationary sentence, and as a consequence is sentenced, is entitled to the benefit of retained or appointed counsel. 2 Such is not the holding, however. *573 “Federal courts have long held that * * the constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the defense of a criminal prosecution, given by the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to a hearing on a | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.