8 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 120 Nev. 639, 642 , 98 P.3d 678, 680 (2004) (holding that a "district court's decision to give or decline a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion," and a party is not entitled to a jury instruction on a case theory which is not supported by the evidence). 2 Sufficient evidence supported Camacho's conviction for kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm Camacho contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the substantial bodily harm enhancement based on the shooting of Wiest during hi 2019See Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 120 Nev. 639, 642 , 98 P.3d 678, 680 (2004) (holding that a "district court's decision to give or decline a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion," and a party is not entitled to a jury instruction on a case theory which is not supported by the evidence). 2 Sufficient evidence supported Camacho's conviction for kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm Camacho contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the substantial bodily harm enhancement based on the shooting of Wiest during hi | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Bokelmangreen2 sentences1981Taking into consideration that inferences will be drawn in favor of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment, “the opponent must nevertheless show he can produce evidence at the trial to support his claim.” Thomas v. Bokelman, supra at 14 , 462 P.2d at 1023 . 1980This court has written: The rule is well-settled that the opposing party is not entitled to have the motion for summary judgment denied on the mere hope that at trial he will be able to discredit movant’s evidence; he must at the hearing be able to point out to the court something indicating the existence of a triable issue of fact. [Citation omitted.] The opponent is required to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. [Citations omitted.] Taking into consideration that inferences will be drawn in favor of the party opposing the motion the opponent must nevert | 1 | 2 |
Nevada Public Employees' Retirement Board v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023Bd. v. Smith, 129 Nev. 618, 627, 310 12We note that, although NRS 41A.071 was amended in 2015 after the decision in Zohar, those amendments did not substantively alter the support requirement. 2015 Nev. 2023Bd. v. Smith, 129 Nev. 618, 627, 310 l2We note that, although NRS 41A.071 was amended in 2015 after the decision in Zohar, those amendments did not substantively alter the support requirement. 2015 Nev. | 1 | 1 |
Van Cleave v. Kietz-Mill Minit Martgreen2 sentences1993See Van Cleave v. Kietz-Mill Minit Mart, 97 Nev. 414, 415 , 633 P.2d 1220, 1222 (1981). 1993See Van Cleave v. Kietz-Mill Minit Mart, 97 Nev. 414, 415 , 633 P.2d 1220, 1222 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Allan v. Chapman, Jr. v. Rudd Paint & Varnish Company, Dave Rivers and Alan Parkgreen1 sentence1970Chapman v. Rudd Paint & Varnish Co., 409 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1969); cf. Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265 (2nd Cir. 1952). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dyer v. MacDougall
green
1 sentence1970Chapman v. Rudd Paint & Varnish Co., 409 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1969); cf. Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265 (2nd Cir. 1952). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Adler v. Adler
green
2 sentences1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . 1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Parmly v. Parmly
green
1 sentence1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Goldman v. Goldman
green
2 sentences1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . 1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Simpson v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . 1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Miller v. Miller
green
2 sentences1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . 1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Prime v. Prime
green
2 sentences1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . 1962Simpson v. Superior Court, 87 Ariz. 350 , 351 P.2d 179 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265 ; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361 , 26 N.E.2d 504 ; Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill.App. 447 , 46 N.E.2d 102 ; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 ; Prime v. Prime, 172 Ore. 34 , 139 P.2d 550 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.