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.
9 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brass v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Cf. Buchanan v. State, 130 Nev. 829 , 833, 335 P.3d 207 , 210 (2014) (predetermining a challenge creates the appearance of improper judicial bias); Brass v. State, 128 Nev. 748 , 750, 291 P.3d 145 , 147 (2012) (requiring reversal when the district court excused a juror prior to holding a hearing on defense's Batson challenge). 2018Cf. Buchanan v. State, 130 Nev. 829 , 833, 335 P.3d 207 , 210 (2014) (predetermining a challenge creates the appearance of improper judicial bias); Brass v. State, 128 Nev. 748 , 750, 291 P.3d 145 , 147 (2012) (requiring reversal when the district court excused a juror prior to holding a hearing on defense's Batson challenge). | 2 | 3 |
Lewis v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015The majority of courts to have considered the question "have concluded that the use of the term 'hearing' in a statute does not confer a [mandatory] right to oral argument [or oral presentation] unless additional statutory language or the context indicates otherwise." Lewis, 970 P.2d at 884 (collecting cases); Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 296 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Absent some otherwise expressed Congressional intent, the 3Article 6, Section 2(2)(a) of the Nevada Constitution, for example, authorizes the Legislature to provide for the "hearing and decision of cases by panels of no fewer than three 2015The majority of courts to have considered the question "have concluded that the use of the term 'hearing' in a statute does not confer a [mandatory] right to oral argument [or oral presentation] unless additional statutory language or the context indicates otherwise." Lewis, 970 P.2d at 884 (collecting cases); Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 296 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Absent some otherwise expressed Congressional intent, the 3Article 6, Section 2(2)(a) of the Nevada Constitution, for example, authorizes the Legislature to provide for the "hearing and decision of cases by panels of no fewer than three | 2 | 2 |
Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board Of Tax Reviewgreen2 sentences2015Co., 410 U.S. at 241-42 (holding that a hearing requirement contained in the Administrative Procedure Act could be satisfied by allowing interested parties to file written submission of argument and evidence and did not require oral testimony or argument); Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 , 176-77 (3d Cir. 1990) ("While [former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 56 speaks of a 'hearing,' we do not read it to require that an oral hearing be held before judgment is entered. 2015Co., 410 U.S. at 241-42 (holding that a hearing requirement contained in the Administrative Procedure Act could be satisfied by allowing interested parties to file written submission of argument and evidence and did not require oral testimony or argument); Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176-77 (3d Cir. 1990) ("While [former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 56 speaks of a 'hearing,' we do not read it to require that an oral hearing be held before judgment is entered. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 410 U.S. at 241-42 (holding that a hearing requirement contained in the Administrative Procedure Act could be satisfied by allowing interested parties to file written submission of argument and evidence and did not require oral testimony or argument); Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 , 176-77 (3d Cir. 1990) ("While [former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 56 speaks of a 'hearing,' we do not read it to require that an oral hearing be held before judgment is entered. 2015Co., 410 U.S. at 241-42 (holding that a hearing requirement contained in the Administrative Procedure Act could be satisfied by allowing interested parties to file written submission of argument and evidence and did not require oral testimony or argument); Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176-77 (3d Cir. 1990) ("While [former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 56 speaks of a 'hearing,' we do not read it to require that an oral hearing be held before judgment is entered. | 2 | 2 |
Kai Tung Chan v. Mary Ann Gantner, Interim District Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Docket No. 05-4573-Cvgreen2 sentences2015The majority of courts to have considered the question "have concluded that the use of the term 'hearing' in a statute does not confer a [mandatory] right to oral argument [or oral presentation] unless additional statutory language or the context indicates otherwise." Lewis, 970 P.2d at 884 (collecting cases); Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 296 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Absent some otherwise expressed Congressional intent, the 3Article 6, Section 2(2)(a) of the Nevada Constitution, for example, authorizes the Legislature to provide for the "hearing and decision of cases by panels of no fewer than three 2015The majority of courts to have considered the question "have concluded that the use of the term 'hearing' in a statute does not confer a [mandatory] right to oral argument [or oral presentation] unless additional statutory language or the context indicates otherwise." Lewis, 970 P.2d at 884 (collecting cases); Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 296 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Absent some otherwise expressed Congressional intent, the 3Article 6, Section 2(2)(a) of the Nevada Constitution, for example, authorizes the Legislature to provide for the "hearing and decision of cases by panels of no fewer than three | 2 | 2 |
Attorney General v. Nevada Tax Comm'ngreen2 sentences2015Tax Comm'n, 124 Nev. 232, 241 , 181 P.3d 675, 681 (2008) (noting multiple, competing dictionary definitions of "hearing" and deeming the hearing requirement in former NIBS 360.247 ambiguous, requiring resort to legislative history to determine its meaning in context). 2015Tax Comm'n, 124 Nev. 232, 241 , 181 P.3d 675, 681 (2008) (noting multiple, competing dictionary definitions of "hearing" and deeming the hearing requirement in former NIBS 360.247 ambiguous, requiring resort to legislative history to determine its meaning in context). | 2 | 2 |
Morgan v. Stategreen1 sentence2020But the district court did not err by denying Gilliland a hearing on this claim—viewed together, the actual and comparative disparities between the number of African and Native Americans in the venire and the overall population do not establish that the venire representation "is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community." Williams, 121 Nev. at 940 , 125 P.3d at 631 (emphasis and internal quotations omitted) (setting requirements for prima facie case of a fair cross-section claim); see Morgan v. State, 134 Nev. 200 , 208, 416 P.3d 212, 222 (2018) (discus | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2020But the district court did not err by denying Gilliland a hearing on this claim—viewed together, the actual and comparative disparities between the number of African and Native Americans in the venire and the overall population do not establish that the venire representation "is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community." Williams, 121 Nev. at 940 , 125 P.3d at 631 (emphasis and internal quotations omitted) (setting requirements for prima facie case of a fair cross-section claim); see Morgan v. State, 134 Nev. 200 , 208, 416 P.3d 212, 222 (2018) (discus 2020But the district court did not err by denying Gilliland a hearing on this claim—viewed together, the actual and comparative disparities between the number of African and Native Americans in the venire and the overall population do not establish that the venire representation "is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community." Williams, 121 Nev. at 940 , 125 P.3d at 631 (emphasis and internal quotations omitted) (setting requirements for prima facie case of a fair cross-section claim); see Morgan v. State, 134 Nev. 200 , 208, 416 P.3d 212, 222 (2018) (discus | 1 | 1 |
Flowers v. Mississippigreen1 sentence2020As to Gilliland's Batson claim, even under a "highly deferential" standard, Flowers v. Mississippi, U.S. „ 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019) (internal quotations omitted), we agree that the district court erred by holding he had not established a prima facie Batson claim. | 1 | 1 |
Hargrove v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Hargrove, 100 Nev. at 502-03 , 686 P.2d at 225 . *211 Regarding the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea, the record shows that appellant was fully informed by the written plea agreement of the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. 1999See Hargrove, 100 Nev. at 502-03 , 686 P.2d at 225 . *211 Regarding the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea, the record shows that appellant was fully informed by the written plea agreement of the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garza v. Idaho
green
2 sentences2019Stiglich Silver 'Regarding appellant's claim that counsel failed to file a pretrial motion opposing the State's motion in limine to admit prior testimony, we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated he is entitled to a hearing on this claim. 2When considering appellant's appeal-deprivation claim, we direct the district court to consider this claim in light of Garza v. Idaho,' 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019) (discussing counsel's duties regarding a defendant's right to appeal where the guilty plea agreement included an appeal-waiver provision). 2019Stiglich Silver 'Regarding appellant's claim that counsel failed to file a pretrial motion opposing the State's motion in limine to admit prior testimony, we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated he is entitled to a hearing on this claim. 2When considering appellant's appeal-deprivation claim, we direct the district court to consider this claim in light of Garza v. Idaho,' 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019) (discussing counsel's duties regarding a defendant's right to appeal where the guilty plea agreement included an appeal-waiver provision). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
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.