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 1956–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Valkenberg v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Van Valkenberg v. State, 95 Nev. 317, 318 , 594 P.2d 707, 708 (1979) ("[W]e decline to review the propriety of the instruction . . . because the record indicates appellant's trial counsel not only failed to object to the instruction, but agreed to it."). 2014See Van Valkenberg v. State, 95 Nev. 317, 318 , 594 P.2d 707, 708 (1979) ("[W]e decline to review the propriety of the instruction . . . because the record indicates appellant's trial counsel not only failed to object to the instruction, but agreed to it."). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Stategreen2 sentences1979See Hudson v. State, 92 Nev. 84 , 545 P.2d 1163 (1976); McCall v. State, 91 Nev. 556 , 540 P.2d 95 (1975). 1979See Hudson v. State, 92 Nev. 84 , 545 P.2d 1163 (1976); McCall v. State, 91 Nev. 556 , 540 P.2d 95 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
North Carolina v. Pearcered1 sentence1974North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 at 718, 719 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Zimmerman v. First Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences1962True, this court in Zimmerman v. District Court, 74 Nev. 344, 347, 348 , 332 P.2d 654, 656 , recognized what appeared to be the weight of authority, when it said: “Despite numerous cases to the contrary, we concede that in most jurisdictions in this country, where the owner-driver situation exists, a principal-agent relationship (and therefore an owner liability) is presumed. 1962True, this court in Zimmerman v. District Court, 74 Nev. 344, 347, 348 , 332 P.2d 654, 656 , recognized what appeared to be the weight of authority, when it said: “Despite numerous cases to the contrary, we concede that in most jurisdictions in this country, where the owner-driver situation exists, a principal-agent relationship (and therefore an owner liability) is presumed. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lucasgreen2 sentences1956See annotation to People v. Lucas, 16 Cal.2d 178 , 105 P.2d 102 , appearing at 130 A.L.R. 1489 , 1491. (3) Appellant next assigns error in the court’s refusal to give his requested instruction D 6, as follows: “You *95 are instructed that generally speaking, if two theories can be reasonably deduced from the evidence, one leading to a conclusion of innocence and one to guilt, the jury should adopt the theory leading to innocence and acquit the defendant.” We are not concerned with the propriety of such an instruction where the proof is entirely circumstantial. 1956See annotation to People v. Lucas, 16 Cal.2d 178 , 105 P.2d 102 , appearing at 130 A.L.R. 1489 , 1491. (3) Appellant next assigns error in the court’s refusal to give his requested instruction D 6, as follows: “You *95 are instructed that generally speaking, if two theories can be reasonably deduced from the evidence, one leading to a conclusion of innocence and one to guilt, the jury should adopt the theory leading to innocence and acquit the defendant.” We are not concerned with the propriety of such an instruction where the proof is entirely circumstantial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beasley v. State
green
2 sentences1983We have previously ruled on the propriety of an instruction of this nature in Beasley v. State, 81 Nev. 431 , 404 P.2d 911 (1965). 1983We have previously ruled on the propriety of an instruction of this nature in Beasley v. State, 81 Nev. 431 , 404 P.2d 911 (1965). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McCall v. State
green
2 sentences1979See Hudson v. State, 92 Nev. 84 , 545 P.2d 1163 (1976); McCall v. State, 91 Nev. 556 , 540 P.2d 95 (1975). 1979See Hudson v. State, 92 Nev. 84 , 545 P.2d 1163 (1976); McCall v. State, 91 Nev. 556 , 540 P.2d 95 (1975). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Buster
neutral
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Hingerton
neutral
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Townsel v. State
neutral
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1971Indeed, it may even be *519 contended appellant might have requested a stronger instruction, cf. Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Leona Henderson v. United States
green
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Branch
green
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Fortes
neutral
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Durham v. State
green
1 sentence1971The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 1955); People v. Buster, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y.App. 1955); Townsel v. State, 286 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y.App. 1961); People v. Lindsey, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y.App. 1963); People v. Fortes, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y.App. 1965); People v. Hingerton, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y.App. 1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Scott v. State
green
2 sentences1970Refusal to give such an instruction was upheld in Scott v. State, 72 Nev. 89, 94-95 , 295 P.2d 391 (1956), where it was stated: “We are not concerned with the propriety of such an instruction where the proof is entirely circumstantial. 1970Refusal to give such an instruction was upheld in Scott v. State, 72 Nev. 89, 94-95 , 295 P.2d 391 (1956), where it was stated: “We are not concerned with the propriety of such an instruction where the proof is entirely circumstantial. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Bonds
neutral
1 sentence1970There was no error in refusing the instruction in view of the direct evidence in this case.” See also People v. Bonds, 1 Nev. 33 (1865). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Bayle-Lacoste & Co. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1961Conceding the propriety of such rule, we are satisfied that Bayle-Lacoste & Co. v. Superior Court (1941), 46 Cal.App.2d 636 , 116 P.2d 458 , and other *33 cases relied upon by appellant are based on factual situations clearly distinguishing the same from this case. 1961Conceding the propriety of such rule, we are satisfied that Bayle-Lacoste & Co. v. Superior Court (1941), 46 Cal.App.2d 636 , 116 P.2d 458 , and other *33 cases relied upon by appellant are based on factual situations clearly distinguishing the same from this case. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.