stare decisis doctrine in Nevada

2024Legal standard "[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling reasons for so doing." Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597 , 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) (footnote omitted).

2024Legal standard "[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling reasons for so doing." Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597 , 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) (footnote omitted).

2024See.Arrnenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531, 535 , 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) ("[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling reasons for so doing." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2024See.Arrnenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531, 535 , 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) ("[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling reasons for so doing." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2024See Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397, 400 , 528 P.2d 1013, 1015 (1974) ("The doctrine of stare decisis must not be so narrowly pursued that the ...law is forever encased in a straight jacket.").

2024See Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397, 400 , 528 P.2d 1013, 1015 (1974) ("The doctrine of stare decisis must not be so narrowly pursued that the ...law is forever encased in a straight jacket.").

2017Therefore, this court finds that in addition to the conduct described in Kennedy, the protections of Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution also attach to those instances when a prosecutor intentionally proceeds in a course of egregious and improper conduct that 'We recognize that "under the doctrine of stare decisis, this court will not overturn precedent absent compelling reasons for so doing." Adam v. State, 127 Nev. 601, 604 , 261 P.3d 1063, 1065 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017Therefore, this court finds that in addition to the conduct described in Kennedy, the protections of Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution also attach to those instances when a prosecutor intentionally proceeds in a course of egregious and improper conduct that 'We recognize that "under the doctrine of stare decisis, this court will not overturn precedent absent compelling reasons for so doing." Adam v. State, 127 Nev. 601, 604 , 261 P.3d 1063, 1065 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2014It must be more than a mere disagreement, such that departing from the doctrine of stare decisis "is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of error." Stocks v. Stocks, 64 Nev. 431, 438 , 183 P.2d 617, 620 (1947) (internal quotations omitted); see also Miller, 124 Nev. at 597 , 118 P.3d at 1124 ("Mere disagreement does not suffice.").

2014It must be more than a mere disagreement, such that departing from the doctrine of stare decisis "is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of error." Stocks v. Stocks, 64 Nev. 431, 438 , 183 P.2d 617, 620 (1947) (internal quotations omitted); see also Miller, 124 Nev. at 597 , 118 P.3d at 1124 ("Mere disagreement does not suffice.").

2024Precedent should be overruled where it is proven "unworkable" or "badly reasoned." State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739, 750 , 312 P.3d 467, 474 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024Precedent should be overruled where it is proven "unworkable" or "badly reasoned." State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739, 750 , 312 P.3d 467, 474 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024Nonetheless, "when governing decisions prove to be 'unworkable or are badly reasoned,' they should be overruled." State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739, 750 , 312 P.3d 467, 474 (2013) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991)).

2024Rigid adherence to stare decisis is the preferred course of action because it "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991).

2018Citing several cases, including Johnson , the Supreme Court concluded "that constituent cases retain their separate identities at least to the extent that a final decision in one is immediately appealable by the losing party." Id. at ----, 138 S.Ct. at 1131 . "[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, [this court] will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling circumstances for so doing.

2018Citing several cases, including Johnson , the Supreme Court concluded "that constituent cases retain their separate identities at least to the extent that a final decision in one is immediately appealable by the losing party." Id. at ----, 138 S.Ct. at 1131 . "[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, [this court] will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling circumstances for so doing.

2023Id. at 402-03, 168 P.3d at 715. "[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling reasons for so doing." Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597, 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) SUPREME COURT (footnote omitted).

2023Id. at 402-03 , 168 P.3d at 715 . "[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn [precedent] absent compelling reasons for so doing." Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597 , 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) SUPREME COURT (footnote omitted).

2022See Belcher v. State, 136 Nev. 261 , 278, 464 P.3d 1013 , 1031 (2020) (listing cases that have rejected similar challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty); Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) •(providing that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to capital sentencing hearings); see also Armenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531, 535 , 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) ("Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn precedent absent compelling reasons for so doing." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

2022See Belcher v. State, 136 Nev. 261 , 278, 464 P.3d 1013 , 1031 (2020) (listing cases that have rejected similar challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty); Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) •(providing that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to capital sentencing hearings); see also Armenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531, 535 , 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) ("Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn precedent absent compelling reasons for so doing." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

2022See Belcher v. State, 136 Nev. 261, 278, 464 P.3d 1013, 1031 (2020) (listing cases that have rejected similar challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty); Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333, 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) •(providing that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to capital sentencing hearings); see also Armenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531, 535, 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) ("Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn precedent absent compelling reasons for so doing." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

2022See Belcher v. State, 136 Nev. 261 , 278, 464 P.3d 1013 , 1031 (2020) (listing cases that have rejected similar challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty); Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) •(providing that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to capital sentencing hearings); see also Armenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531, 535 , 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) ("Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we will not overturn precedent absent compelling reasons for so doing." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

2021Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597, 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) (noting that this court will not overturn its precedent "absent compelling reasons for so doing"); see Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 272 (1980) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that stare decisis protects the courts interest in orderly adjudication, as well as the broader societal interests in evenhanded, consistent, and predictable application of legal rules).

2021Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597 , 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) (noting that this court will not overturn its precedent "absent compelling reasons for so doing"); see Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 272 (1980) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that stare decisis protects the courts interest in orderly adjudication, as well as the broader societal interests in evenhanded, consistent, and predictable application of legal rules).

2014See Armenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. „ 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) (stating that this court is "loath to depart from the doctrine of stare decisis," and will not do so "absent compelling reasons" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Michaels, 642 A.2d 1372, 1383-84 (N.J. 1994) (describing taint hearing procedure).

1996Consistent with Sleeper , the Supreme Court of California has stated: In this state it is clearly the law that the violation of an order in excess of the jurisdiction of the issuing court cannot produce a valid judgment of contempt, and that the “jurisdiction” in question extends beyond mere subject matter or personal jurisdiction to that concept described by us in Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal [ 109 P.2d 942, 948 (1941)]: “Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory

1996Consistent with Sleeper , the Supreme Court of California has stated: In this state it is clearly the law that the violation of an order in excess of the jurisdiction of the issuing court cannot produce a valid judgment of contempt, and that the “jurisdiction” in question extends beyond mere subject matter or personal jurisdiction to that concept described by us in Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal [ 109 P.2d 942, 948 (1941)]: “Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory

1990For in such cases Congress may cure any error made by the courts." Cottrell v. C.I.R., 628 F.2d 1127, 1131 (8th Cir.1980).

1974In State v. Culver, 129 A.2d 715, 721 (N.J. 1957), Chief Justice Vanderbilt wrote: “. . .

1963Dist. (1953), 41 Cal.2d 33, 41 [15], 257 P.2d 22 (per Justice Shenk, with only Justice Carter dissenting), upon facts materially identical with those of the present case, held that `Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be modified in this state is a legislative question.' Also this court, in denying petitions for hearing after decisions of the District Courts of Appeal, has during the last decade frequently adhered to this view. [Citing many cases] But today's majority apparently impatient with the Legislature's failure to act as speedily and comprehensively as they believe it sho

1963Dist. (1953), 41 Cal.2d 33, 41 [15], 257 P.2d 22 (per Justice Shenk, with only Justice Carter dissenting), upon facts materially identical with those of the present case, held that `Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be modified in this state is a legislative question.' Also this court, in denying petitions for hearing after decisions of the District Courts of Appeal, has during the last decade frequently adhered to this view. [Citing many cases] But today's majority apparently impatient with the Legislature's failure to act as speedily and comprehensively as they believe it sho