case-by-case analysis (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

case-by-case analysis in Nevada

6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2016 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Letesheia O. v. State, Division of Child & Family Servicesgreen
nev · 2005 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 543-45 (explaining that juveniles are not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e entitled to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings as long as other fact- finding procedures such as "notice, counsel, confrontation, cross- examination, and standard of proof' are in place to ensure accuracy and protect the juvenile's interests); see also In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 383 , 115 P.3d 223, 227 (2005) (providing that while "no absolute right to counsel in termination proceedings exists in Nevada," counsel may be appointed if a case-by-case analysis pursu

2016See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 543-45 (explaining that juveniles are not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e entitled to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings as long as other fact- finding procedures such as "notice, counsel, confrontation, cross- examination, and standard of proof' are in place to ensure accuracy and protect the juvenile's interests); see also In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 383, 115 P.3d 223, 227 (2005) (providing that while "no absolute right to counsel in termination proceedings exists in Nevada," counsel may be appointed if a case-by-case analysis pursua

22
In Re Parental Rights as to NDOgreen
nev · 2005 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 543-45 (explaining that juveniles are not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e entitled to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings as long as other fact- finding procedures such as "notice, counsel, confrontation, cross- examination, and standard of proof' are in place to ensure accuracy and protect the juvenile's interests); see also In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 383 , 115 P.3d 223, 227 (2005) (providing that while "no absolute right to counsel in termination proceedings exists in Nevada," counsel may be appointed if a case-by-case analysis pursu

2016See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 543-45 (explaining that juveniles are not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e entitled to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings as long as other fact- finding procedures such as "notice, counsel, confrontation, cross- examination, and standard of proof' are in place to ensure accuracy and protect the juvenile's interests); see also In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 383, 115 P.3d 223, 227 (2005) (providing that while "no absolute right to counsel in termination proceedings exists in Nevada," counsel may be appointed if a case-by-case analysis pursua

22
McKeiver v. Pennsylvaniagreen
scotus · 1971 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 543-45 (explaining that juveniles are not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e entitled to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings as long as other fact- finding procedures such as "notice, counsel, confrontation, cross- examination, and standard of proof' are in place to ensure accuracy and protect the juvenile's interests); see also In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 383 , 115 P.3d 223, 227 (2005) (providing that while "no absolute right to counsel in termination proceedings exists in Nevada," counsel may be appointed if a case-by-case analysis pursu

2016See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 543-45 (explaining that juveniles are not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e entitled to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings as long as other fact- finding procedures such as "notice, counsel, confrontation, cross- examination, and standard of proof' are in place to ensure accuracy and protect the juvenile's interests); see also In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 383, 115 P.3d 223, 227 (2005) (providing that while "no absolute right to counsel in termination proceedings exists in Nevada," counsel may be appointed if a case-by-case analysis pursua

22
Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance of Americagreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Co., 15 Cal.4th 882 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 578 , 938 P.2d 372, 376 (1997) (discussing statutory forms for lien waiver provisions that do not violate public policy if the waiver is "in conjunction with payment, or a promise of payment"). [32] Although the district court concluded that all lien waiver provisions violate public policy and are thus unenforceable, whether a lien waiver provision is enforceable, as set forth above, depends on a case-by-case analysis of whether it violates public policy, for example, by waiving the lien right regardless of whether the contractor receives payment.

2008Co., 15 Cal.4th 882 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 578 , 938 P.2d 372, 376 (1997) (discussing statutory forms for lien waiver provisions that do not violate public policy if the waiver is "in conjunction with payment, or a promise of payment"). [32] Although the district court concluded that all lien waiver provisions violate public policy and are thus unenforceable, whether a lien waiver provision is enforceable, as set forth above, depends on a case-by-case analysis of whether it violates public policy, for example, by waiving the lien right regardless of whether the contractor receives payment.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Leon green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2013Id. at 923 .

2013Id. at 923 .

22013–2013

Where else courts name it

TN 121 (1985–2026) CA 110 (1974–2026) IL 90 (1978–2025) NY 83 (1972–2026) TX 75 (1972–2025) OH 72 (1979–2025) WA 63 (1986–2026) CT 61 (1986–2025) PA 60 (1974–2025) NJ 55 (1958–2026) LA 53 (1985–2024) NM 49 (1983–2024) FL 43 (1976–2026) CO 43 (1976–2026) NC 40 (1984–2026) ID 34 (1978–2026) RI 32 (1985–2022) WI 30 (1977–2024) MD 29 (1975–2025) MI 28 (1981–2024) MO 24 (1964–2021) IA 23 (1996–2023) MS 23 (1979–2024) KS 22 (1981–2022) MA 21 (1982–2024) VA 21 (1980–2024) SC 20 (1984–2020) OR 18 (1952–2025) AZ 18 (1985–2025) MN 17 (1988–2025) UT 17 (1989–2025) KY 16 (1987–2026) GA 14 (1992–2023) NE 12 (1983–2023) MT 11 (1993–2025) HI 10 (1994–2025) OK 9 (1983–2022) ND 9 (1985–2024) WV 8 (1983–2025) DC 8 (1986–2016) VT 8 (1992–2020) AL 7 (1986–2007) AK 7 (1983–2022) IN 7 (1993–2019) NV 6 (2008–2016) WY 6 (1984–2024) ME 5 (1992–2018) AR 5 (1981–2008) NH 4 (1991–2007) SD 3 (2001–2023) DE 2 (2013–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check