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 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
University of Nevada v. Tarkaniangreen2 sentences2018In defining that term, we will keep in mind the purpose of the issue preclusion doctrine: "to prevent multiple litigation causing vexation and expense to the parties and wasted judicial resources by precluding parties from relitigating issues." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581 , 598, 879 P.2d 1180 , 1191 (1994) (describing the purpose of res judicata generally, of which issue preclusion is one of two "species"), holding modified on other grounds by Exec. 2018In defining that term, we will keep in mind the purpose of the issue preclusion doctrine: "to prevent multiple litigation causing vexation and expense to the parties and wasted judicial resources by precluding parties from relitigating issues." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581 , 598, 879 P.2d 1180 , 1191 (1994) (describing the purpose of res judicata generally, of which issue preclusion is one of two "species"), holding modified on other grounds by Exec. | 2 | 3 |
University & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Suttongreen2 sentences2016Sys. v. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 984, 103 P.3d 8, 16 (2004) (issue preclusion); see 18B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 2016Sys. v. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 984, 103 P.3d 8, 16 (2004) (issue preclusion); see 18B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. | 2 | 2 |
Southern California Edison v. First Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences2016Court, 127 Nev. 276, 280, 255 P.3d 231, 234 (2011), including the applicability of the mandate rule, the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the doctrine of issue preclusion, Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, 263, 71 P.3d 1258, 1260 (2003) (mandate rule); State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. 2016Court, 127 Nev. 276, 280, 255 P.3d 231, 234 (2011), including the applicability of the mandate rule, the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the doctrine of issue preclusion, Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, 263, 71 P.3d 1258, 1260 (2003) (mandate rule); State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. | 2 | 2 |
Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemongreen2 sentences2016Court, 127 Nev. 276, 280, 255 P.3d 231, 234 (2011), including the applicability of the mandate rule, the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the doctrine of issue preclusion, Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, 263, 71 P.3d 1258, 1260 (2003) (mandate rule); State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. 2016Court, 127 Nev. 276, 280, 255 P.3d 231, 234 (2011), including the applicability of the mandate rule, the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the doctrine of issue preclusion, Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, 263, 71 P.3d 1258, 1260 (2003) (mandate rule); State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. | 2 | 2 |
Reyn's Pasta Bella, Llc v. Visa Usa, Inc.green1 sentence2007See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 , 746 (9th Cir. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Trustees of the Carpenters for Southern Nevada Health & Welfare Trust v. Better Building Co.green2 sentences2000This failure to raise the issue preclusion defense earlier, appellant argues, is analogous to the withholding of information in Trustees, Carpenters v. Better Building Co., 101 Nev. 742, 746 , 710 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995). 2000This failure to raise the issue preclusion defense earlier, appellant argues, is analogous to the withholding of information in Trustees, Carpenters v. Better Building Co., 101 Nev. 742, 746 , 710 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Beattie v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2000In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588 , 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), we stated that the trial court should consider the following factors in exercising its discretion regarding an NRCP 68 award of attorney’s fees: (1) whether the plaintiff’s claim was brought in good faith; (2) whether the defendant’s offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; (3) whether the plaintiff’s decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and (4) whether the fees sought by the offeror are reasonable and justified in amount. 2000In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588 , 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), we stated that the trial court should consider the following factors in exercising its discretion regarding an NRCP 68 award of attorney’s fees: (1) whether the plaintiff’s claim was brought in good faith; (2) whether the defendant’s offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; (3) whether the plaintiff’s decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and (4) whether the fees sought by the offeror are reasonable and justified in amount. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yeager v. United States
green
2 sentences2013The court may not consider a jury's inability to reach a verdict on some of the counts; "[b] ecause a jury speaks only through its verdict," its inability to reach a verdict is a "nonevent," and "consideration of [the] hung counts has no place in the issue- preclusion analysis." 2 Yeager, 557 U.S. at 120-22 . 2013The court may not consider a jury’s inability to reach a verdict on some of the counts; “[b]ecause a jury speaks only through its verdict,” its inability to reach a verdict is a “nonevent,” and “consideration of [the] hung counts has no place in the issue-preclusion analysis.” 2 Yeager, 557 U.S. at 120-22 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
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.