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 2 courts 1982–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2018The threshold requirement for the applicability of Teague's retroactivity framework is that the new rule at issue must be a constitutional rule. 2 See Teague , 489 U.S. at 306 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 . 2018The threshold requirement for the applicability of Teague's retroactivity framework is that the new rule at issue must be a constitutional rule. 2 See Teague , 489 U.S. at 306 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 . | 2 | 5 |
Hamdan v. Rumsfeldyellow1 sentence2012Application of ‘‘a jurisdiction-conferring or jurisdiction-stripping statute usually ‘takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.”’ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 576-77 (2006) (quoting Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508 (1916)). | 1 | 1 |
Hallowell v. Commonsgreen1 sentence2012Application of ‘‘a jurisdiction-conferring or jurisdiction-stripping statute usually ‘takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.”’ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 576-77 (2006) (quoting Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508 (1916)). | 1 | 1 |
Landgraf v. USI Film Productsgreen1 sentence2012The parties focus on whether NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) is retroactive, but a retroactivity analysis is unnecessary because NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) is a jurisdictional statute. 5 “[Sjtatutes ‘conferring or ousting jurisdiction’ that ‘speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties’ generally do not raise concerns about retroactivity.” Henry v. Ashcroft, 175 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 274 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Ashcroftgreen1 sentence2012The parties focus on whether NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) is retroactive, but a retroactivity analysis is unnecessary because NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) is a jurisdictional statute. 5 “[Sjtatutes ‘conferring or ousting jurisdiction’ that ‘speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties’ generally do not raise concerns about retroactivity.” Henry v. Ashcroft, 175 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 274 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tehan v. United States Ex Rel. Shottgreen1 sentence1982But see, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). 2 In Tehan v. United States, 382 U.S. 406 (1966), the Court was required to determine the retroactivity of the rule established in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965): adverse comment by a prosecutor or judge upon a defendant’s failure to testify violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1 |
Stovall v. Dennogreen1 sentence1982But see, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). 2 In Tehan v. United States, 382 U.S. 406 (1966), the Court was required to determine the retroactivity of the rule established in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965): adverse comment by a prosecutor or judge upon a defendant’s failure to testify violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Californiagreen1 sentence1982But see, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). 2 In Tehan v. United States, 382 U.S. 406 (1966), the Court was required to determine the retroactivity of the rule established in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965): adverse comment by a prosecutor or judge upon a defendant’s failure to testify violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colwell v. State
green
2 sentences2021For purposes of the retroactivity analysis, we have said that a conviction is "final" when "judgment has been entered, the availability of appeal has been exhausted, and a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court has been denied or the time for such a petition has expired." Id. 2021For purposes of the retroactivity analysis, we have said that a conviction is "final" when "judgment has been entered, the availability of appeal has been exhausted, and a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court has been denied or the time for such a petition has expired." Id. | 2 | 2011–2021 |
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.