6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Under Washington, no compelling reason exists “unless there is little or no corroboration of the victim’s allegations and the defense has questioned the effect of the victim’s emotional or mental condition upon her veracity.” Washington, 96 Nev. at 307 , 608 P.2d at 1102. 2 This court held in Lickey that, unless competent evidence presents a compelling reason to protect the victim, a defendant in a child sexual assault case is entitled to have the victim undergo an independent examination when the State is provided such assistance. 2000Under Washington, no compelling reason exists "unless there is little or no corroboration of the victim's allegations and the defense has questioned the effect of the victim's emotional or mental condition upon her veracity." Washington, 96 Nev. at 307 , 608 P.2d at 1102. [2] This court held in Lickey that, unless competent evidence presents a compelling reason to protect the victim, a defendant in a child sexual assault case is entitled to have the victim undergo an independent examination when the State is provided such assistance. | 4 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. State
green
2 sentences2000Under Washington, no compelling reason exists “unless there is little or no corroboration of the victim’s allegations and the defense has questioned the effect of the victim’s emotional or mental condition upon her veracity.” Washington, 96 Nev. at 307 , 608 P.2d at 1102. 2 This court held in Lickey that, unless competent evidence presents a compelling reason to protect the victim, a defendant in a child sexual assault case is entitled to have the victim undergo an independent examination when the State is provided such assistance. 2000Under Washington, no compelling reason exists "unless there is little or no corroboration of the victim's allegations and the defense has questioned the effect of the victim's emotional or mental condition upon her veracity." Washington, 96 Nev. at 307 , 608 P.2d at 1102. [2] This court held in Lickey that, unless competent evidence presents a compelling reason to protect the victim, a defendant in a child sexual assault case is entitled to have the victim undergo an independent examination when the State is provided such assistance. | 4 | 1992–2000 |
State v. Braxton
green
2 sentences1980Id., 49 Cal. Rptr. at 313 , 410 P.2d at 849 ; State v. Braxton, 20 Wash. App. 489 , 580 P.2d 1116 (1978). 1980Id., 49 Cal. Rptr. at 313 , 410 P.2d at 849 ; State v. Braxton, 20 Wash. App. 489 , 580 P.2d 1116 (1978). | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County
red
2 sentences1980Id., 49 Cal. Rptr. at 313 , 410 P.2d at 849 ; State v. Braxton, 20 Wash. App. 489 , 580 P.2d 1116 (1978). 1980Id., 49 Cal. Rptr. at 313 , 410 P.2d at 849 ; State v. Braxton, 20 Wash. App. 489 , 580 P.2d 1116 (1978). | 2 | 1980–1980 |
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.