6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Raymond Razo Perez v. Jerry Allen Seeversgreen2 sentences2019Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989). 2019Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. City and County San Franciscogreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (concluding that an attorney's work on a civil rights plaintiffs unsuccessful claim that is based on facts and theories distinctly different from the civil rights claim cannot be compensated); Davis, 976 F.2d at 1542-43 (noting the parties' agreement that hours spent on non-civil rights claims should not be included in the lodestar amount). 2007See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35 (1983) (concluding that an attorney’s work on a civil rights plaintiff’s unsuccessful claim that is based on facts and theories distinctly different from the civil rights claim cannot be compensated); Davis, 976 F.2d at 1542-43 (noting the parties’ agreement that hours spent on non-civil rights claims should not be included in the lodestar amount). | 2 | 2 |
Hensley v. Eckerhartgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (concluding that an attorney's work on a civil rights plaintiffs unsuccessful claim that is based on facts and theories distinctly different from the civil rights claim cannot be compensated); Davis, 976 F.2d at 1542-43 (noting the parties' agreement that hours spent on non-civil rights claims should not be included in the lodestar amount). 2007See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35 (1983) (concluding that an attorney’s work on a civil rights plaintiff’s unsuccessful claim that is based on facts and theories distinctly different from the civil rights claim cannot be compensated); Davis, 976 F.2d at 1542-43 (noting the parties’ agreement that hours spent on non-civil rights claims should not be included in the lodestar amount). | 2 | 2 |
Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.green2 sentences2021However, a party is generally not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a civil rights claim in federal or state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.6 Patsy, 457 U.S. at 516 ; Felder v. Casey, 5We have considered Stuart's arguments regarding the finality doctrine, NRS 432B.317, and NRS 233B.130, and in light of our decision here, we conclude those arguments are without merit. 2021However, a party is generally not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a civil rights claim in federal or state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.6 Patsy, 457 U.S. at 516; Felder v. Casey, 5We have considered Stuart's arguments regarding the finality doctrine, NRS 432B.317, and NRS 233B.130, and in light of our decision here, we conclude those arguments are without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Felder v. Caseygreen2 sentences2021We also do not address Stuart's argument that the district court properly denied Eggleston's NRCP 56(f) request for discovery because Eggleston does not dispute this ruling on appeal. 642 U.S.C. § 1983 reads as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 1.047,,, 40115)10 487 U.S. 131, 146-47 (1988). 2021We also do not address Stuart's argument that the district court properly denied Eggleston's NRCP 56(f) request for discovery because Eggleston does not dispute this ruling on appeal. 642 U.S.C. § 1983 reads as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 1.047,,, 40115)10 487 U.S. 131, 146-47 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Will v. Michigan Department of State Policegreen2 sentences1998See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 , 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2310 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). 1998See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 , 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2310 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.