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 1951–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Randall v. Salvation Armygreen2 sentences2018Before Mallin , this court recognized the ambiguity of the term "consolidation." The term can mean that "several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identities and become a single action" or that "several actions are tried together but each retains its separate character." Randall v. Salvation Army, 100 Nev. 466 , 470, 686 P.2d 241 , 243 (1984). 2018Before Mallin , this court recognized the ambiguity of the term "consolidation." The term can mean that "several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identities and become a single action" or that "several actions are tried together but each retains its separate character." Randall v. Salvation Army, 100 Nev. 466 , 470, 686 P.2d 241 , 243 (1984). | 2 | 3 |
Enterprise Bank v. Gustave J. Saettele Laura Saettele, Landmark Bank of St. Charles County v. Gustave J. Saettele Laura Saettelegreen1 sentence2007Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233, 235 (8th Cir. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Naum v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See NRS 49.095; NRS 49.075; Naum v. State, 630 P.2d 785, 788 (Okla. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Henke
green
2 sentences2018Cf. United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633 , 637 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding joint defense created a disqualifying conflict where counsel was unable to cross-examine on specific matters that were learned of through the joint defense agreement). 2018Cf. United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633 , 637 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding joint defense created a disqualifying conflict where counsel was unable to cross-examine on specific matters that were learned of through the joint defense agreement). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wheat v. United States
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] 486 U.S. 153 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). [2] A joint defense agreement was subsequently submitted to the district court. [3] It is unclear whether Saggese was the attorney who approached Denue about the joint defense agreement. [4] The district court quoted Wheat, 486 U.S. at 164 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 . [5] NRS 34.160. [6] Washoe County Dist. 2007NOTES [1] 486 U.S. 153 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). [2] A joint defense agreement was subsequently submitted to the district court. [3] It is unclear whether Saggese was the attorney who approached Denue about the joint defense agreement. [4] The district court quoted Wheat, 486 U.S. at 164 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 . [5] NRS 34.160. [6] Washoe County Dist. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Stanton v. Superior Court of California
green
2 sentences1951In support of respondent’s contention that the payment of the Purdy judgment is an express acknowledgment of their liability to pay the Carner judgment by reason of the asserted “consolidation,” she relies on Stanton v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 478 , 261 P. 1001, 1003 . 1951In support of respondent’s contention that the payment of the Purdy judgment is an express acknowledgment of their liability to pay the Carner judgment by reason of the asserted “consolidation,” she relies on Stanton v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 478 , 261 P. 1001, 1003 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.