10 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Polk v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682 , 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451 , 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166 , 167 n.2 (2002) 2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st | 4 | 4 |
Bates v. Chronistergreen2 sentences2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st 2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st | 4 | 4 |
Indiana v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2019The Legislature has specified certain, enumerated 2 To the extent appellant argues that the test for competency to stand trial is different than the test for a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver, Justice Scalia noted that "[it was never the rule at common law that a defendant could be competent to stand trial and yet incompetent to either exercise or give up some of the rights provided for his defense," Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 184 (2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that the Court had previously "rejected the invitation to craft a higher co 2019The Legislature has specified certain, enumerated 2 To the extent appellant argues that the test for competency to stand trial is different than the test for a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver, Justice Scalia noted that "[it was never the rule at common law that a defendant could be competent to stand trial and yet incompetent to either exercise or give up some of the rights provided for his defense," Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 184 (2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that the Court had previously "rejected the invitation to craft a higher co | 2 | 2 |
McNair v. Sheriff, Clark Countygreen2 sentences2016While the State's conscious indifference to the petitioner's rights may bar a subsequent prosecution, McNair v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 434, 438 , 514 P.2d 1175, 1177 (1973), the district court concluded that the prosecutor's actions did not demonstrate a conscious indifference to the petitioner's rights. 2016While the State's conscious indifference to the petitioner's rights may bar a subsequent prosecution, McNair v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 434, 438 , 514 P.2d 1175, 1177 (1973), the district court concluded that the prosecutor's actions did not demonstrate a conscious indifference to the petitioner's rights. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Deborah A. Browngreen1 sentence2015See United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654, 664 (2d Cir. 2003) ("There is. . . usually little question that any Batson error we find would affect a defendant's substantial rights the violation of which would result in manifest injustice." (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Diaz v. State
green
2 sentences2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st 2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st | 4 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Fourth Judicial District Court
green
2 sentences1991The filing of an affidavit of bias or prejudice without specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought, which results in a transfer of the action to another district judge is a waiver of the parties’ rights under this rule. . . . 2 See also Moore v. District Court, 77 Nev. 357 , 364 P.2d 1073 (1961), where this court recognized that an intervening party is essentially an original party to a cause of action who has the same right to file affidavits of prejudice against a district court judge as other original parties. 1991The filing of an affidavit of bias or prejudice without specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought, which results in a transfer of the action to another district judge is a waiver of the parties’ rights under this rule. . . . 2 See also Moore v. District Court, 77 Nev. 357 , 364 P.2d 1073 (1961), where this court recognized that an intervening party is essentially an original party to a cause of action who has the same right to file affidavits of prejudice against a district court judge as other original parties. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Broder v. Water Co.
green
1 sentence1980In declaring those “principles”, he quoted the following from Broder v. Water Company, 101 U.S. 274 , (1879): “It is the established doctrine of this court that rights of . . . persons who had constructed canals and ditches . . . are rights which the government had, by its conduct, recognized and encouraged and was bound to protect before the passage of the Act of 1866.” We are of the opinion “that the section of the Act which we have quoted was *322 rather a voluntary recognition of a preexisting right of possession, constituting a valid claim to its continued use, than the establishment of a | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Central Pacific Railway Co. v. Alameda County
green
1 sentence1980In declaring those “principles”, he quoted the following from Broder v. Water Company, 101 U.S. 274 , (1879): “It is the established doctrine of this court that rights of . . . persons who had constructed canals and ditches . . . are rights which the government had, by its conduct, recognized and encouraged and was bound to protect before the passage of the Act of 1866.” We are of the opinion “that the section of the Act which we have quoted was *322 rather a voluntary recognition of a preexisting right of possession, constituting a valid claim to its continued use, than the establishment of a | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.