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.
7 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bush v. Stategreen2 sentences1981We considered the following to be demonstrative of good cause for non-compliance: Whether the testimony is sought to be introduced at such a late time in the course of the trial that even an adjournment for investigation would not cure the prejudice to the state, State v. Woodard, 246 A.2d 130, 134 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown *4 for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 42 1971Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 429, 434 (Kan. 1969); and whether the alibi had such substance as to have probative value to the defense, State v. Martin, 410 P.2d 132, 137 (Ariz.App. 1966). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adairgreen2 sentences1981We considered the following to be demonstrative of good cause for non-compliance: Whether the testimony is sought to be introduced at such a late time in the course of the trial that even an adjournment for investigation would not cure the prejudice to the state, State v. Woodard, 246 A.2d 130, 134 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown *4 for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 42 1971Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 429, 434 (Kan. 1969); and whether the alibi had such substance as to have probative value to the defense, State v. Martin, 410 P.2d 132, 137 (Ariz.App. 1966). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences1981We considered the following to be demonstrative of good cause for non-compliance: Whether the testimony is sought to be introduced at such a late time in the course of the trial that even an adjournment for investigation would not cure the prejudice to the state, State v. Woodard, 246 A.2d 130, 134 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown *4 for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 42 1971Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 429, 434 (Kan. 1969); and whether the alibi had such substance as to have probative value to the defense, State v. Martin, 410 P.2d 132, 137 (Ariz.App. 1966). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Woodardgreen2 sentences1981We considered the following to be demonstrative of good cause for non-compliance: Whether the testimony is sought to be introduced at such a late time in the course of the trial that even an adjournment for investigation would not cure the prejudice to the state, State v. Woodard, 246 A.2d 130, 134 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown *4 for the omission, State v. Adair, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (Ariz. 1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 454 P.2d 42 1971Super. 419 , 246 A.2d 130, 134 (App.Div. 1968); whether an excuse was shown for the omission, State v. Adair, 106 Ariz. 4 , 469 P.2d 823, 826 (1970); whether the information failed to describe the occurrence of the crime with sufficient specificity to enable the accused to prepare an alibi defense, Bush v. State, 203 Kan. 494 , 454 P.2d 429, 434 (1969); and whether the alibi had such substance as to have probative value to the defense, State v. Martin, 2 Ariz. App. 510 , 410 P.2d 132, 137 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Tien Fu Hsu v. County of Clarkgreen2 sentences2020See Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing circumstances where the doctrine of the law of the case may not apply); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314 , 535 P.2d 797 (1975) (setting forth the doctrine of the law of the case). 2020See Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing circumstances where the doctrine of the law of the case may not apply); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314 , 535 P.2d 797 (1975) (setting forth the doctrine of the law of the case). | 1 | 1 |
Miller-El v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, 2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, | 1 | 1 |
Miller-El v. Stategreen1 sentence2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, | 1 | 1 |
Purkett v. Elemgreen2 sentences2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, 2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, | 1 | 1 |
Libby v. Stategreen2 sentences2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, 2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, | 1 | 1 |
Kaczmarek v. Stategreen2 sentences2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, 2006We conclude that each of Ford’s additional arguments lacks merit. 3 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). 4 At trial, Tanguma testified that he had eaten lunch with Ford nearly every day for two years and that he was certain Ford was one of the robbers. 5 Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 332 , 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995)). 6 See Libby v. State, 113 Nev. 251, 255 , 934 P.2d 220, 222 (1997). 7 See Kaczmarek, 120 Nev. at 332 , 91 P.3d at 29 . 8 Id. at 333 , 91 P.3d at 29 (citing Burkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 334, 91 P.3d at 30 (citing Purkett, | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Benjamin Jerome Hicks, United States of America v. Frankie Randallgreen1 sentence1988Having concluded that the lower court erred by not giving an alibi instruction, we can sustain Duckett’s conviction only “if we can say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 858 (4th Cir. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Polito v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Polito v. State, 71 Nev. 135, 142 , 282 P.2d 801, 804 (1955). 1983Polito v. State, 71 Nev. 135, 142 , 282 P.2d 801, 804 (1955). | 1 | 1 |
Hankins v. Stategreen2 sentences1981This Court has repeatedly held as recently as Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378 , 580 P.2d 473 (1978) “that where ‘there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.’ Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477 , 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). 1981This Court has repeatedly held as recently as Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378 , 580 P.2d 473 (1978) “that where ‘there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.’ Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477 , 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences2020See Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing circumstances where the doctrine of the law of the case may not apply); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314 , 535 P.2d 797 (1975) (setting forth the doctrine of the law of the case). 2020See Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31 , 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (recognizing circumstances where the doctrine of the law of the case may not apply); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314 , 535 P.2d 797 (1975) (setting forth the doctrine of the law of the case). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2006Therefore, we affirm Ford’s conviction. 1 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 Ford also assigns error to the following aspects of his trial: (1) the district court improperly permitted prior bad act evidence without a hearing or limiting instruction, (2) the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on the definition of “deadly weapon,” (3) the State failed to prove use of a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, (4) the district court erred by not giving an alibi instruction sua sponte, and (5) the district court erred by refusing to suppress an alleged suggestive identification process. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Founts v. State
green
2 sentences1981Having shown “good cause” relative to the probative value of the anticipated testimony, more notice than that afforded by the prosecution in Founts, and a reasonable explanation for the *5 nominal delay, 3 on this record, to require strict compliance with the statute would “defeat the ends of justice and fair play which is the policy underlying the statute.” Founts v. State, 87 Nev. at 170 , 483 P.2d at 656 . 1981Id., at 169 , 483 P.2d at 656 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Stewart v. State
green
2 sentences1981This Court has repeatedly held as recently as Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378 , 580 P.2d 473 (1978) “that where ‘there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.’ Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477 , 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). 1981This Court has repeatedly held as recently as Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378 , 580 P.2d 473 (1978) “that where ‘there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.’ Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477 , 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Selbach
green
1 sentence1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966); People v. Williams, 160 N.W.2d 599 (Mich.App. 1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 161 N.W.2d 892 (Wis. 1968). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Gray v. State
green
2 sentences1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 101 Ariz. 234 , 418 P.2d 571 (1966); People v. Williams, 11 Mich. App. 62 , 160 N.W.2d 599 (1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 40 Wis.2d 379 , 161 N.W.2d 892 (1968). 1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966); People v. Williams, 160 N.W.2d 599 (Mich.App. 1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 161 N.W.2d 892 (Wis. 1968). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Dodd
green
2 sentences1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 101 Ariz. 234 , 418 P.2d 571 (1966); People v. Williams, 11 Mich. App. 62 , 160 N.W.2d 599 (1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 40 Wis.2d 379 , 161 N.W.2d 892 (1968). 1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966); People v. Williams, 160 N.W.2d 599 (Mich.App. 1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 161 N.W.2d 892 (Wis. 1968). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Williams v. Florida
green
2 sentences1971If there was any real question about the constitutionality, notice-of-alibi statutes such as NRS 174.087, that question was put to rest in the case of Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d *659 446 (1970) [3] when the United States Supreme Court said: "We conclude, however, as has apparently every court which has considered the issue that the privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses." Almost without exception, in the jurisdictions where the trial courts have 1971If there was any real question about the constitutionality, notice-of-alibi statutes such as NRS 174.087, that question was put to rest in the case of Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) 3 when the United States Supreme Court said: “We conclude, however, as has apparently every court which has considered the issue that the privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses.” Almost without exception, in the jurisdictions where the trial courts have exercised their discretion and refused t | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 101 Ariz. 234 , 418 P.2d 571 (1966); People v. Williams, 11 Mich. App. 62 , 160 N.W.2d 599 (1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 40 Wis.2d 379 , 161 N.W.2d 892 (1968). 1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966); People v. Williams, 160 N.W.2d 599 (Mich.App. 1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 161 N.W.2d 892 (Wis. 1968). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 101 Ariz. 234 , 418 P.2d 571 (1966); People v. Williams, 11 Mich. App. 62 , 160 N.W.2d 599 (1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 40 Wis.2d 379 , 161 N.W.2d 892 (1968). 1971State v. Selbach, supra; Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762 (Fla.App. 1969); State v. Dodd, 418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966); People v. Williams, 160 N.W.2d 599 (Mich.App. 1968); State v. Woodard, supra; Gray v. State, 161 N.W.2d 892 (Wis. 1968). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.