6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1950–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dawsongreen2 sentences2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A Pool, 677 P.2d at 271-72; see also People v. Dawson, 397 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (adopting the Arizona test). 2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A Pool, 677 P.2d at 271-72; see also People v. Dawson, 397 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (adopting the Arizona test). | 3 | 3 |
Pool v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A Pool, 677 P.2d at 271-72; see also People v. Dawson, 397 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (adopting the Arizona test). 2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A Pool, 677 P.2d at 271-72; see also People v. Dawson, 397 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (adopting the Arizona test). | 3 | 3 |
Orvine H. Schaefer v. H. B. Green Transportation Line, Inc.green2 sentences2011Green Transportation Line, 232 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1956) ("It is generally recognized that penalties fixed by state laws are not [enforceable] in federal courts or even in other State courts."); People v. Laino, 32 Cal.4th 878 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 87 P.3d 27, 34 (2004) (recognizing Huntington 's penal exception and determining that "[i]f California need not give full faith and credit to penal judgments of another state, then it is free to determine under its own laws whether defendant's Arizona plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of the three strikes law"); Wellman v. Mead, 93 Vt. 2011Green Transportation Line, 232 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir. 1956) (“It is generally recognized that penalties fixed by state laws are not [enforceable] in federal courts or even in other State courts.”); People v. Laino, 87 P.3d 27, 34 (Cal. 2004) (recognizing Huntington’s penal exception and determining that “[i]f California need not give full faith and credit to penal judgments of another state, then it is free to determine under its own laws whether defendant’s Arizona plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of the three strikes law”); Wellman v. Mead, 107 A. 396, 398-400 (Vt. 1919) (recogniz | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lainogreen2 sentences2011Green Transportation Line, 232 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1956) ("It is generally recognized that penalties fixed by state laws are not [enforceable] in federal courts or even in other State courts."); People v. Laino, 32 Cal.4th 878 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 87 P.3d 27, 34 (2004) (recognizing Huntington 's penal exception and determining that "[i]f California need not give full faith and credit to penal judgments of another state, then it is free to determine under its own laws whether defendant's Arizona plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of the three strikes law"); Wellman v. Mead, 93 Vt. 2011Green Transportation Line, 232 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1956) ("It is generally recognized that penalties fixed by state laws are not [enforceable] in federal courts or even in other State courts."); People v. Laino, 32 Cal.4th 878 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 87 P.3d 27, 34 (2004) (recognizing Huntington 's penal exception and determining that "[i]f California need not give full faith and credit to penal judgments of another state, then it is free to determine under its own laws whether defendant's Arizona plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of the three strikes law"); Wellman v. Mead, 93 Vt. | 1 | 1 |
Wellman v. Meadgreen2 sentences2011Green Transportation Line, 232 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1956) ("It is generally recognized that penalties fixed by state laws are not [enforceable] in federal courts or even in other State courts."); People v. Laino, 32 Cal.4th 878 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 87 P.3d 27, 34 (2004) (recognizing Huntington 's penal exception and determining that "[i]f California need not give full faith and credit to penal judgments of another state, then it is free to determine under its own laws whether defendant's Arizona plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of the three strikes law"); Wellman v. Mead, 93 Vt. 2011Green Transportation Line, 232 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1956) ("It is generally recognized that penalties fixed by state laws are not [enforceable] in federal courts or even in other State courts."); People v. Laino, 32 Cal.4th 878 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 87 P.3d 27, 34 (2004) (recognizing Huntington 's penal exception and determining that "[i]f California need not give full faith and credit to penal judgments of another state, then it is free to determine under its own laws whether defendant's Arizona plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of the three strikes law"); Wellman v. Mead, 93 Vt. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 1210 . 19 We note that similar to Arizona's rule, our offer of judgment rule does not speak to apportionment based on allocated offers of judgment among multiple offerees. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
George v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
2 sentences1950In Nebraska the Arizona rule is said to have been applied in George v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 121 Neb. 647 , 238 N.W. 36, 39 , but in that case the court said: “The policy in the case at bar provided that the insured should give immediate notice of an accident, but a careful reading of the policy discloses that it contained no forfeiture clause,” and refused to enforce the effect of failure to give notice which “amounts to a forfeiture” where “the policy does not provide for such a forfeiture.” Under such condition it applied the lack of prejudice rule. 1950In Nebraska the Arizona rule is said to have been applied in George v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 121 Neb. 647 , 238 N.W. 36, 39 , but in that case the court said: “The policy in the case at bar provided that the insured should give immediate notice of an accident, but a careful reading of the policy discloses that it contained no forfeiture clause,” and refused to enforce the effect of failure to give notice which “amounts to a forfeiture” where “the policy does not provide for such a forfeiture.” Under such condition it applied the lack of prejudice rule. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
John B. Stevens & Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins.
green
2 sentences1950Stevens & Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Insurance Co., 9 Cir., 207 F. 757 , 47 L.R.A., N.S., 1214. 1950Stevens & Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Insurance Co., 9 Cir., 207 F. 757 , 47 L.R.A., N.S., 1214. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
St. Paul & Kansas City Short Line Railroad v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences1950Paul, etc. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 231 Mo.App. 613 , 105 S.W.2d 14 , said to have adopted the Arizona rule. 1950Paul, etc. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 231 Mo.App. 613 , 105 S.W.2d 14 , said to have adopted the Arizona rule. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Haas v. Mutual Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1950Earlier Nebraska cases were referred to as holding that a forfeiture would not be declared in insurance cases “unless the contract specifically provides for such forfeiture.” Haas v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 84 Neb. 682 , 121 N.W. 996 , 26 L.R.A., N.S., 747, 19 Ann.Cas. 58; Hagelin v. Commonwealth Life Ins. 1950Earlier Nebraska cases were referred to as holding that a forfeiture would not be declared in insurance cases “unless the contract specifically provides for such forfeiture.” Haas v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 84 Neb. 682 , 121 N.W. 996 , 26 L.R.A., N.S., 747, 19 Ann.Cas. 58; Hagelin v. Commonwealth Life Ins. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Insurance Co. of North America v. Brim
green
2 sentences1950The case cited as following the Arizona rule in Indiana is Insurance Company of North America v. Brim, 111 Ind. 281 , 12 N.E. 315, 317 . 1950The case cited as following the Arizona rule in Indiana is Insurance Company of North America v. Brim, 111 Ind. 281 , 12 N.E. 315, 317 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.