13 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mirin v. Stategreen2 sentences2018However, we have declined to assign error to the district court for refusing to give a self-defense instruction where the evidence showed that the defendant "was the pursuer and aggressor." Mirin v. State, 93 Nev. 57 , 59, 560 P.2d 145 , 146 (1977). 2018However, we have declined to assign error to the district court for refusing to give a self-defense instruction where the evidence showed that the defendant "was the pursuer and aggressor." Mirin v. State, 93 Nev. 57 , 59, 560 P.2d 145 , 146 (1977). | 2 | 3 |
Runion v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Runion, 116 Nev. at 1046 , 13 P.3d at 55 . 2026See Runion, 116 Nev. at 1046 , 13 P.3d at 55 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Byron Felix Kalamagreen2 sentences2015United States v. Kalama, 549 F.2d 594, 596 (9th Cir. 1976). 2015United States v. Kalama, 549 F.2d 594, 596 (9th Cir. 1976). | 2 | 2 |
Wilmeth v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Id. 2017Id. at 407, 610 P.2d at 738. | 1 | 2 |
Petty v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Petty, 116 Nev. at 327, 997 P.2d at 803 . | 1 | 1 |
Daniel v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Under Daniel, evidence of a defendant's state of mind in a self-defense claim is admissible only to prove a defendant's knowledge of the victim's propensity for violence. 119 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Nev. at 515, 78 P.3d at 902 ("[E]vidence of specific acts showing that the victim was a violent person is admissible if a defendant seeks to establish self-defense and was aware of those acts."). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2014A defendant "has the right to have the jury instructed on [his or her] theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible that evidence may be." Crawford, 121 Nev. at 751, 121 P.3d at 586 (internal quotations omitted); see Harris v. State, 106 Nev. 667, 670, 799 P.2d 1104, 1105-06 (1990) (concluding that the district court erred by refusing to approve a self-defense instruction when the defendant testified that the victim attacked and attempted to rob him); Mirin v. State, 93 Nev. 57, 59, 560 P.2d 145, 146 (1977) (concluding that the district court did not err by 2014A defendant "has the right to have the jury instructed on [his or her] theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible that evidence may be." Crawford, 121 Nev. at 751, 121 P.3d at 586 (internal quotations omitted); see Harris v. State, 106 Nev. 667, 670, 799 P.2d 1104, 1105-06 (1990) (concluding that the district court erred by refusing to approve a self-defense instruction when the defendant testified that the victim attacked and attempted to rob him); Mirin v. State, 93 Nev. 57, 59, 560 P.2d 145, 146 (1977) (concluding that the district court did not err by | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Stategreen2 sentences2014A defendant "has the right to have the jury instructed on [his or her] theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible that evidence may be." Crawford, 121 Nev. at 751, 121 P.3d at 586 (internal quotations omitted); see Harris v. State, 106 Nev. 667, 670, 799 P.2d 1104, 1105-06 (1990) (concluding that the district court erred by refusing to approve a self-defense instruction when the defendant testified that the victim attacked and attempted to rob him); Mirin v. State, 93 Nev. 57, 59, 560 P.2d 145, 146 (1977) (concluding that the district court did not err by 2014A defendant "has the right to have the jury instructed on [his or her] theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible that evidence may be." Crawford, 121 Nev. at 751, 121 P.3d at 586 (internal quotations omitted); see Harris v. State, 106 Nev. 667, 670, 799 P.2d 1104, 1105-06 (1990) (concluding that the district court erred by refusing to approve a self-defense instruction when the defendant testified that the victim attacked and attempted to rob him); Mirin v. State, 93 Nev. 57, 59, 560 P.2d 145, 146 (1977) (concluding that the district court did not err by | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Tactical decisions such as this one "are virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances," Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853 , 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989), which appellant did not demonstrate. 2013Tactical decisions such as this one "are virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances," Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853 , 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989), which appellant did not demonstrate. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 10840732
neutral
1 sentence2026In Chabot, we held that when a defendant has presented sufficient evidence of a self-defense claim, the defendant is then permitted to introduce evidence of a victim's specific acts without testifying—provided, of course, that the defendant knew about the specific acts at the time of the altercation. 142 Nev., Adv. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Batson v. State
green
2 sentences2021See NRS 200.160; NRS 200.120(1); Runion v. State, 116 Nev. 1041, 1046 , 13 P.3d 52, 56 (2000)4; Batson v. State, 113 Nev. 669 , 674 n.2, 941 P.2d 478 , 481 n.2 (1997). 2021See NRS 200.160; NRS 200.120(1); Runion v. State, 116 Nev. 1041, 1046 , 13 P.3d 52, 56 (2000)4; Batson v. State, 113 Nev. 669 , 674 n.2, 941 P.2d 478 , 481 n.2 (1997). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1988State v. Stewart, 763 P.2d 572 (Kan. 1988). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.