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.
8 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Revert v. Raygreen2 sentences2015Revert v. Ray, 95 Nev. 782, 787 , 603 P.2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall. . . provide to the State Engineer and to each protestant and each applicant information required by the State Engineer SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A e relating to the application or protest."). 2015Revert v. Ray, 95 Nev. 782, 787 , 603 P.2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall. . . provide to the State Engineer and to each protestant and each applicant information required by the State Engineer SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A e relating to the application or protest."). | 6 | 6 |
In Re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litigationgreen2 sentences2010See In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Lit., 659 F.Supp.2d 31, 71-84 (D.D.C.2009) (examining in extensive detail the issue of judicial power and finality of judgments under federal precedent and stating an inclination to conclude that because of the centrality of preclusion principles to the judiciary's purpose of rendering final judgments in civil cases, under certain circumstances, legislation negating these doctrines violates separation of powers); McFadden v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 338 Or. 528 , 112 P.3d 1191, 1195, 1198 (2005) (suggesting that a statute preventing application of prec 2010See In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Lit., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31, 71-84 (D. | 1 | 1 |
McFadden v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2010See In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Lit., 659 F.Supp.2d 31, 71-84 (D.D.C.2009) (examining in extensive detail the issue of judicial power and finality of judgments under federal precedent and stating an inclination to conclude that because of the centrality of preclusion principles to the judiciary's purpose of rendering final judgments in civil cases, under certain circumstances, legislation negating these doctrines violates separation of powers); McFadden v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 338 Or. 528 , 112 P.3d 1191, 1195, 1198 (2005) (suggesting that a statute preventing application of prec 2010See In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Lit., 659 F.Supp.2d 31, 71-84 (D.D.C.2009) (examining in extensive detail the issue of judicial power and finality of judgments under federal precedent and stating an inclination to conclude that because of the centrality of preclusion principles to the judiciary's purpose of rendering final judgments in civil cases, under certain circumstances, legislation negating these doctrines violates separation of powers); McFadden v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 338 Or. 528 , 112 P.3d 1191, 1195, 1198 (2005) (suggesting that a statute preventing application of prec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024"The Due Process Clause forbids an agency to use evidence in a way that forecloses an opportunity to offer a contrary presentation." Id. (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 288 n.4 (1974)). 2024"The Due Process Clause forbids an agency to use evidence in a way that forecloses an opportunity to offer a contrary presentation." Id. (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 , 288 n.4 (1974)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.