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 1994–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maresca v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673 , 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court."). 2014See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673 , 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court."). | 1 | 1 |
Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegasgreen2 sentences2014Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013) (explaining that leave to amend a complaint should be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile because it attempts to plead an impermissible claim); Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 , 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that a complaint should be dismissed "if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief). 2014Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013) (explaining that leave to amend a complaint should be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile because it attempts to plead an impermissible claim); Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 , 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that a complaint should be dismissed "if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief). | 1 | 1 |
Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of Clarkgreen1 sentence2014Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013) (explaining that leave to amend a complaint should be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile because it attempts to plead an impermissible claim); Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 , 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that a complaint should be dismissed "if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief). | 1 | 1 |
Downing v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences2008Id. at 606 n.7, 5 P.3d at 1048 n.7. 12 See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 337 F.3d 1024 . 14 Id. at 1030 . 15 Id. (quoting Downing v. Municipal Court, 198 P.2d 923, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (internal quotation omitted)). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 We note that the Walter Homes Operating Agreement did not supersede the requirement set forth in NRS 624.305 that “[n]o license may be used for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom such license is issued.” 20 We reject Crestdale Associates’ argument that, because the jury did not find “wrongfulness” with resp 2008Id. at 606 n.7, 5 P.3d at 1048 n.7. 12 See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 337 F.3d 1024 . 14 Id. at 1030 . 15 Id. (quoting Downing v. Municipal Court, 198 P.2d 923, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (internal quotation omitted)). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 We note that the Walter Homes Operating Agreement did not supersede the requirement set forth in NRS 624.305 that “[n]o license may be used for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom such license is issued.” 20 We reject Crestdale Associates’ argument that, because the jury did not find “wrongfulness” with resp | 1 | 1 |
Kremen v. Cohengreen2 sentences2008Id. at 606 n.7, 5 P.3d at 1048 n.7. 12 See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 337 F.3d 1024 . 14 Id. at 1030 . 15 Id. (quoting Downing v. Municipal Court, 198 P.2d 923, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (internal quotation omitted)). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 We note that the Walter Homes Operating Agreement did not supersede the requirement set forth in NRS 624.305 that “[n]o license may be used for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom such license is issued.” 20 We reject Crestdale Associates’ argument that, because the jury did not find “wrongfulness” with resp 2008Id. at 606 n.7, 5 P.3d at 1048 n.7. 12 See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 337 F.3d 1024 . 14 Id. at 1030 . 15 Id. (quoting Downing v. Municipal Court, 198 P.2d 923, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (internal quotation omitted)). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 We note that the Walter Homes Operating Agreement did not supersede the requirement set forth in NRS 624.305 that “[n]o license may be used for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom such license is issued.” 20 We reject Crestdale Associates’ argument that, because the jury did not find “wrongfulness” with resp | 1 | 1 |
Sterling v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Ct. App. 2001). 19 We have considered Herman’s equal protection argument and conclude that Herman has failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1054 , 968 P.2d 739, 746 (1998). 21 Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). 22 McKenna, 114 Nev. at 1050 , 968 P.2d at 742-43 . 23 Id. at 1051 , 968 P.2d at 744 . 24 Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94 , 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). 25 Id. at 94 , 545 P.2d at 1161 . 26 NRS 176.156(5). 27 114 Nev. at 1051-52 , 968 P.2d at 744 (citation omitted). 2006Ct. App. 2001). 19 We have considered Herman’s equal protection argument and conclude that Herman has failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1054 , 968 P.2d 739, 746 (1998). 21 Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). 22 McKenna, 114 Nev. at 1050 , 968 P.2d at 742-43 . 23 Id. at 1051 , 968 P.2d at 744 . 24 Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94 , 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). 25 Id. at 94 , 545 P.2d at 1161 . 26 NRS 176.156(5). 27 114 Nev. at 1051-52 , 968 P.2d at 744 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Silks v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Ct. App. 2001). 19 We have considered Herman’s equal protection argument and conclude that Herman has failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1054 , 968 P.2d 739, 746 (1998). 21 Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). 22 McKenna, 114 Nev. at 1050 , 968 P.2d at 742-43 . 23 Id. at 1051 , 968 P.2d at 744 . 24 Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94 , 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). 25 Id. at 94 , 545 P.2d at 1161 . 26 NRS 176.156(5). 27 114 Nev. at 1051-52 , 968 P.2d at 744 (citation omitted). 2006Ct. App. 2001). 19 We have considered Herman’s equal protection argument and conclude that Herman has failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1054 , 968 P.2d 739, 746 (1998). 21 Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). 22 McKenna, 114 Nev. at 1050 , 968 P.2d at 742-43 . 23 Id. at 1051 , 968 P.2d at 744 . 24 Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94 , 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). 25 Id. at 94 , 545 P.2d at 1161 . 26 NRS 176.156(5). 27 114 Nev. at 1051-52 , 968 P.2d at 744 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
McKenna v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Ct. App. 2001). 19 We have considered Herman’s equal protection argument and conclude that Herman has failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1054 , 968 P.2d 739, 746 (1998). 21 Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). 22 McKenna, 114 Nev. at 1050 , 968 P.2d at 742-43 . 23 Id. at 1051 , 968 P.2d at 744 . 24 Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94 , 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). 25 Id. at 94 , 545 P.2d at 1161 . 26 NRS 176.156(5). 27 114 Nev. at 1051-52 , 968 P.2d at 744 (citation omitted). 2006Ct. App. 2001). 19 We have considered Herman’s equal protection argument and conclude that Herman has failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1054 , 968 P.2d 739, 746 (1998). 21 Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). 22 McKenna, 114 Nev. at 1050 , 968 P.2d at 742-43 . 23 Id. at 1051 , 968 P.2d at 744 . 24 Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94 , 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). 25 Id. at 94 , 545 P.2d at 1161 . 26 NRS 176.156(5). 27 114 Nev. at 1051-52 , 968 P.2d at 744 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence1995Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude, as we did in Warner , that “trial counsel’s performance was so deficient as to render the trial result unreliable.” 102 Nev. at 638 , 729 P.2d at 1361 ; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Conley v. Gibsonred1 sentence1994Edgar v. Wagner, 101 Nev. 226, 227-28 , 699 P.2d 110, 111-12 (1985) (citation omitted). *1277 “The complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would entitle him [or her] to relief.” Id. at 228 , 699 P.2d at 112 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). | 1 | 1 |
Edgar v. Wagnergreen2 sentences1994Edgar v. Wagner, 101 Nev. 226, 227-28 , 699 P.2d 110, 111-12 (1985) (citation omitted). *1277 “The complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would entitle him [or her] to relief.” Id. at 228 , 699 P.2d at 112 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). 1994Edgar v. Wagner, 101 Nev. 226, 227-28 , 699 P.2d 110, 111-12 (1985) (citation omitted). *1277 “The complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would entitle him [or her] to relief.” Id. at 228 , 699 P.2d at 112 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
M & R Inv. Co., Inc. v. Mandarino
green
2 sentences1995In M & R Investment Co. v. Mandarino, 103 Nev. 711 , 748 P.2d 488 (1987), we faced the question of whether appellant, "a twenty-two year old man, disguised in dark glasses, a false mustache and slicked down hair, who by virtue of his skill at counting cards, [won] a great deal of money in a short period of time" had stated a cognizable claim for intrusion against the casino personnel who confiscated his winnings, had him arrested, photographed him, and distributed his photograph to other casinos. 1995In M & R Investment Co. v. Mandarino, 103 Nev. 711 , 748 P.2d 488 (1987), we faced the question of whether appellant, "a twenty-two year old man, disguised in dark glasses, a false mustache and slicked down hair, who by virtue of his skill at counting cards, [won] a great deal of money in a short period of time" had stated a cognizable claim for intrusion against the casino personnel who confiscated his winnings, had him arrested, photographed him, and distributed his photograph to other casinos. | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 606 n.7, 5 P.3d at 1048 n.7. 12 See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 337 F.3d 1024 . 14 Id. at 1030 . 15 Id. (quoting Downing v. Municipal Court, 198 P.2d 923, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (internal quotation omitted)). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 We note that the Walter Homes Operating Agreement did not supersede the requirement set forth in NRS 624.305 that “[n]o license may be used for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom such license is issued.” 20 We reject Crestdale Associates’ argument that, because the jury did not find “wrongfulness” with resp 2008Id. at 606 n.7, 5 P.3d at 1048 n.7. 12 See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 337 F.3d 1024 . 14 Id. at 1030 . 15 Id. (quoting Downing v. Municipal Court, 198 P.2d 923, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (internal quotation omitted)). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 We note that the Walter Homes Operating Agreement did not supersede the requirement set forth in NRS 624.305 that “[n]o license may be used for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom such license is issued.” 20 We reject Crestdale Associates’ argument that, because the jury did not find “wrongfulness” with resp | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Warner v. State
green
2 sentences1995Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude, as we did in Warner , that “trial counsel’s performance was so deficient as to render the trial result unreliable.” 102 Nev. at 638 , 729 P.2d at 1361 ; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 1995Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude, as we did in Warner , that “trial counsel’s performance was so deficient as to render the trial result unreliable.” 102 Nev. at 638 , 729 P.2d at 1361 ; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.