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 1979–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Ronald Thrashergreen2 sentences2017Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677 , 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) ("Prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a district judge from exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction."); cf. United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2007) (observing that the mandate rule implicates the lower court's jurisdiction, but recognizing a split of authority). 1 We disagree with the argument by real parties in interest (collectively, Santa Margarita) regarding a due process violation. 2016See United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2007). | 3 | 3 |
Hung Hy Nguyen Dba Mekong Market v. United States of America, Raymond Bertrand Dba Ray's Groceries v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015Nguyen v. United States, 792 F.2d 1500, 1503 (9th Cir. 1986). 2015Nguyen v. United States, 792 F.2d 1500, 1503 (9th Cir. 1986). | 3 | 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 |
United States v. Leegreen2 sentences2022"The mandate rule is a specific application of the law-of-the-case doctrine that compels the district court on remand to comply with this court's dictates and prohibits it from relitigating issues this court decided." SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 tO1 1947A etADD United States v. Mims, 655 F. App'x 179, 182 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004). 2022"The mandate rule is a specific application of the law-of-the-case doctrine that compels the district court on remand to comply with this court's dictates and prohibits it from relitigating issues this court decided." SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 tO1 1947A etADD United States v. Mims, 655 F. App'x 179, 182 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Bejarano v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Cf. Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine that have been adopted by federal courts and adopting an exception); Bejarano v. State, 122 Nev. 1066, 1074 , 146 P.3d 265, 271 (2006) ("[T]he doctrine of the law of the case is not absolute . . . ."). 2022Cf. Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine that have been adopted by federal courts and adopting an exception); Bejarano v. State, 122 Nev. 1066, 1074 , 146 P.3d 265, 271 (2006) ("[T]he doctrine of the law of the case is not absolute . . . ."). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gransihi Mimsgreen2 sentences2022"The mandate rule is a specific application of the law-of-the-case doctrine that compels the district court on remand to comply with this court's dictates and prohibits it from relitigating issues this court decided." SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 tO1 1947A etADD United States v. Mims, 655 F. App'x 179, 182 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004). 2022"The mandate rule is a specific application of the law-of-the-case doctrine that compels the district court on remand to comply with this court's dictates and prohibits it from relitigating issues this court decided." SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 tO1 1947A etADD United States v. Mims, 655 F. App'x 179, 182 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Tien Fu Hsu v. County of Clarkgreen2 sentences2022Cf. Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine that have been adopted by federal courts and adopting an exception); Bejarano v. State, 122 Nev. 1066, 1074 , 146 P.3d 265, 271 (2006) ("[T]he doctrine of the law of the case is not absolute . . . ."). 2022Cf. Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine that have been adopted by federal courts and adopting an exception); Bejarano v. State, 122 Nev. 1066, 1074 , 146 P.3d 265, 271 (2006) ("[T]he doctrine of the law of the case is not absolute . . . ."). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Filimon Garcia-Beltrangreen1 sentence2017Op. 81, 386 P.3d 621 , 624 (2016) ("The mandate rule generally requires lower courts to effectuate a higher court's ruling on remand."); see United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The rule of mandate requires a lower court to act on the mandate of an appellate court, without variance or examination, only execution."). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences2017Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677 , 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) ("Prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a district judge from exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction."); cf. United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2007) (observing that the mandate rule implicates the lower court's jurisdiction, but recognizing a split of authority). 1 We disagree with the argument by real parties in interest (collectively, Santa Margarita) regarding a due process violation. 2017Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677 , 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) ("Prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a district judge from exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction."); cf. United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2007) (observing that the mandate rule implicates the lower court's jurisdiction, but recognizing a split of authority). 1 We disagree with the argument by real parties in interest (collectively, Santa Margarita) regarding a due process violation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jose Echavarria v. Timothy Filson
green
1 sentence2018Cf. Echavarria v. Filson, 896 F.3d. 1118 , 1132 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming district court's grant of federal habeas relief based on implied judicial bias claim) (discussing Rippo ). *1114 The mandate rule requires us to adhere to what the Supreme Court decided expressly or by necessary implication. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Saka v. SAHARA-NEVADA CORPORATION
green
2 sentences1979Saka v. Sahara-Nevada Corp., 92 Nev. 703 , 558 P.2d 535 (1976); Catrone v. 105 Casino Corp., 82 Nev. 166 , 414 P.2d 106 (1966). 1979Saka v. Sahara-Nevada Corp., 92 Nev. 703 , 558 P.2d 535 (1976); Catrone v. 105 Casino Corp., 82 Nev. 166 , 414 P.2d 106 (1966). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Catrone v. 105 Casino Corporation
green
2 sentences1979Saka v. Sahara-Nevada Corp., 92 Nev. 703 , 558 P.2d 535 (1976); Catrone v. 105 Casino Corp., 82 Nev. 166 , 414 P.2d 106 (1966). 1979Saka v. Sahara-Nevada Corp., 92 Nev. 703 , 558 P.2d 535 (1976); Catrone v. 105 Casino Corp., 82 Nev. 166 , 414 P.2d 106 (1966). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.