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 1983–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Melchor-Gloria v. Stategreen2 sentences2021"If [evidence raising a reasonable doubt] exists, the failure of the court to order a formal competency hearing is an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process."10 Melchor-Gloria, 99 Nev. at 180 , 660 P.2d at 113 violation of due process: evidence giving rise to a reasonable doubt about competency, and failure to order a competency hearing. 2021"If [evidence raising a reasonable doubt] exists, the failure of the court to order a formal competency hearing is an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process."10 Melchor-Gloria, 99 Nev. at 180 , 660 P.2d at 113 violation of due process: evidence giving rise to a reasonable doubt about competency, and failure to order a competency hearing. | 8 | 9 |
Olivares v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Nevertheless, we note that NRS 178.405 and NRS 178.415 prescribe a framework for compliance with the due COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 12 to) Nos .410,3 process reasonable doubt standard that trial courts are required to fo11ow.6 Unequivocal and diligent adherence to these statutes will naturally guide district courts to a reliable determination of whether a formal competency hearing is necessary and, ultimately, whether the defendant is incompetent.' See Olivares, 124 Nev. at 1149 , 195 P.3d at 869 ("In addition to the doubts that have been raised, the district court may consider all available i 2021Nevertheless, we note that NRS 178.405 and NRS 178.415 prescribe a framework for compliance with the due COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 12 to) Nos .410,3 process reasonable doubt standard that trial courts are required to fo11ow.6 Unequivocal and diligent adherence to these statutes will naturally guide district courts to a reliable determination of whether a formal competency hearing is necessary and, ultimately, whether the defendant is incompetent.' See Olivares, 124 Nev. at 1149, 195 P.3d at 869 ("In addition to the doubts that have been raised, the district court may consider all available in | 8 | 8 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bernie Moore v. United States
green
1 sentence1983Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 , 86 S.Ct. 836 (1966); Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d at 666 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1983Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 , 86 S.Ct. 836 (1966); Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d at 666 . 1983Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 , 86 S.Ct. 836 (1966); Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d at 666 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.