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 1978–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
University of Nevada v. Tarkaniangreen2 sentences2020"Generally, the doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or those in privity with them from relitigating a cause of action or an issue which has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev.. 581, 598, 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994), SUPREM COURT OF NEVADA 7 tO) 1947A 440. holding modified on other grounds by Exec. 1998“Generally, the doctrine of res judicata precludes parties . . . from relitigating a cause of action or an issue which has been finally determined by a court . . . .” University of Nevada v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). | 4 | 5 |
Horvath v. Gladstonegreen2 sentences2018However, "Mlle doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action which has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594, 596 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981). 2018However, "Mlle doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action which has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594, 596 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981). | 3 | 3 |
Five Star Capital Corp. v. Rubygreen2 sentences2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709, 2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709, | 2 | 2 |
Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc.green2 sentences2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709, 2018Issue preclusion and claim preclusion are "two different species of res judicata." Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598 , 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994). "[I]ssue preclusion requires that (1) an issue be identical, (2) the initial ruling was final and on the merits, (3) 'the party against whom the judgment is asserted' was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case, and (4) 'the issue was actually and necessarily litigated." Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc., 125 Nev. 470, 481 , 215 P.3d 709, 718 (2009) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055 , 194 P.3d 709, | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gilbert v. Warren
green
2 sentences1994Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594, 597 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981); Gilbert v. Warren, 95 Nev. 296 , 594 P.2d 696 (1979). 1994Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594, 597 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981); Gilbert v. Warren, 95 Nev. 296 , 594 P.2d 696 (1979). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association
green
2 sentences1978Ass'n, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942), stated, `The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 1978Ass'n, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942), stated, `The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.