10 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nurenberger Hercules-Werke GMBH v. Virostekgreen2 sentences2014Nurenberger Hercules-Werke GMBH v. Virostek, 107 Nev. 873, 881 , 822 P.2d 1100, 1106 (1991). 2014Nurenberger Hercules-Werke GMBH v. Virostek, 107 Nev. 873, 881 , 822 P.2d 1100, 1106 (1991). | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Safeway, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Centennial, through Hall Prangle, filed an opposition to Doe's motion for summary judgment, arguing that strict liability did not apply because "Farmer's actions weren't reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of th[is] case." As part of their foreseeability argument, Centennial cited to and summarized our decision in Wood v. Safeway, Inc ., 121 Nev. 724 , 121 P.3d 1026 (2005), stating that "the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that ... because the assailant had no prior criminal record in the United States or Mexico, and because there w[ere] no prior complaints against the assa 2018Centennial, through Hall Prangle, filed an opposition to Doe's motion for summary judgment, arguing that strict liability did not apply because "Farmer's actions weren't reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of th[is] case." As part of their foreseeability argument, Centennial cited to and summarized our decision in Wood v. Safeway, Inc ., 121 Nev. 724 , 121 P.3d 1026 (2005), stating that "the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that ... because the assailant had no prior criminal record in the United States or Mexico, and because there w[ere] no prior complaints against the assa | 5 | 2018–2018 |
Club Vista Financial Servs. v. Dist. Ct.
green
1 sentence2020And the method ultimately provided Kamedula with much of the discovery he sought, including some over the State's objections.5 See id. (declining to 5Kamedu1a does not explain how the district court prevented him from identifying the names of additional Doe defendants. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas
green
1 sentence2014Although notice is relevant for determining whether a pleading may relate back, Costello v. Casler, 127 Nev. 254 P.3d 631, 634 (2011), it is not a relevant factor in determining whether a new defendant may be named in place of a Doe defendant under NRCP 10. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lunn v. American Maintenance Corp.
green
2 sentences1991In its order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents, the district court based its decision on Lunn v. American Maintenance Corp., 96 Nev. 787 , 618 P.2d 343 (1980), and the Lunn court’s ruling concerning the requirements and effect of NRCP 10(a) and 15(c) as they relate to Doe defendants and the relation back of an amended pleading to the original complaint. 1991In its order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents, the district court based its decision on Lunn v. American Maintenance Corp., 96 Nev. 787 , 618 P.2d 343 (1980), and the Lunn court’s ruling concerning the requirements and effect of NRCP 10(a) and 15(c) as they relate to Doe defendants and the relation back of an amended pleading to the original complaint. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.