Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coker v. Sassonegreen2 sentences2020See Coker, 135 Nev. at 10, 432 P.3d at 748 ("In 2013, the Legislature removed the language likening an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss to a motion for 9 summary judgment and set forth a specific burden-shifting framework."). 2020See Coker, 135 Nev. at 10, 432 P.3d at 748 ("In 2013, the Legislature removed the language likening an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss to a motion for 9 summary judgment and set forth a specific burden-shifting framework."). | 3 | 5 |
Monahan v. Hogangreen2 sentences2025Hogan, 138 Nev. 58 , 65, 507 P.3d 588, 594 (Ct. App. 2022) (explaining that the burden of proof provision in NRS 125€.007(3) “was the Legislature’s attempt to undo the burden-shifting framework that the supreme court had established” in prior caselaw, whereby after “the relocating parent demonstrated the threshold provisions and relocation factors, the burden shifted to the nonrelocating parent to show that the move would not be in the child’s best interests”). 2025Hogan, 138 Nev. 58 , 65, 507 P.3d 588, 594 (Ct. App. 2022) (explaining that the burden of proof provision in NRS 125C.007(3) "was the Legislature's attempt to undo the burden-shifting framework that the supreme court had established" in prior caselaw, whereby after "the relocating parent demonstrated the threshold provisions and relocation factors, the burden shifted to the nonrelocating parent to show that the move would not be in the child's best interests"). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2022In Jones, the court held that once the relocating parent demonstrated the threshold provisions and relocation factors, the burden shifted to the nonrelocating parent to show that the move would not be in the child's best interests. 110 Nev. at 1266 , 885 P.2d at 572 . 2022In Jones, the court held that once the relocating parent demonstrated the threshold provisions and relocation factors, the burden shifted to the nonrelocating parent to show that the move would not be in the child's best interests. 110 Nev. at 1266 , 885 P.2d at 572 . | 1 | 2 |
CLARK CTY. SCHOOL DIST. VS. LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNALgreen2 sentences2020In CCSD, this court adopted a different burden- shifting test for nontrivial privacy claims asserted in response to public records requests, in which any such privacy interest is weighed against the requester's demonstration of a significant public interest in disclosure. 134 Nev. at 708, 429 P.3d at 320. 2020We then adopted a two-part burden-shifting test used by federal courts to "facilitateH a court's balancing of nontrivial privacy interests against public disclosure." Id. (citing Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637). | 1 | 1 |
Cameranesi v. United States Department of Defensegreen2 sentences2020We then adopted a two-part burden-shifting test used by federal courts to "facilitateH a court's balancing of nontrivial privacy interests against public disclosure." Id. (citing Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637 ). 2020We then adopted a two-part burden-shifting test used by federal courts to "facilitateH a court's balancing of nontrivial privacy interests against public disclosure." Id. (citing Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.