Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2024And we explained "that whether expert te,stimony on grooming behavior is admissible in a case involving sexual conduct with a child must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Id. at 853 , 313 P.3d at 864-65 (emphasis added). 2024And we explained "that whether expert te,stimony on grooming behavior is admissible in a case involving sexual conduct with a child must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Id. at 853 , 313 P.3d at 864-65 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Honeycutt v. Statered2 sentences2021The challenge to Instruction No. 27 lacks merit because the language in the instruction is consistent with what this court has held must be included in a consent instruction that addresses reasonable belief of consent.2 See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 763 , 121 P.3d 592, 595 (2005) (reiterating the requirement that an instruction addressing reasonable belief of consent must state that it a belief that is based upon ambiguous conduct by an alleged victim that is the product of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another is not a r 2021The challenge to Instruction No. 27 lacks merit because the language in the instruction is consistent with what this court has held must be included in a consent instruction that addresses reasonable belief of consent.2 See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 763 , 121 P.3d 592, 595 (2005) (reiterating the requirement that an instruction addressing reasonable belief of consent must state that it a belief that is based upon ambiguous conduct by an alleged victim that is the product of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another is not a r | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2021The challenge to Instruction No. 27 lacks merit because the language in the instruction is consistent with what this court has held must be included in a consent instruction that addresses reasonable belief of consent.2 See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 763 , 121 P.3d 592, 595 (2005) (reiterating the requirement that an instruction addressing reasonable belief of consent must state that it a belief that is based upon ambiguous conduct by an alleged victim that is the product of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another is not a r 2021The challenge to Instruction No. 27 lacks merit because the language in the instruction is consistent with what this court has held must be included in a consent instruction that addresses reasonable belief of consent.2 See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 763 , 121 P.3d 592, 595 (2005) (reiterating the requirement that an instruction addressing reasonable belief of consent must state that it a belief that is based upon ambiguous conduct by an alleged victim that is the product of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another is not a r | 1 | 1 |
American Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambertgreen1 sentence2018Co. v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 589-91 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding that a defendant's majority interest in a California-based subsidiary was too attenuated to vest personal jurisdiction where the defendant conducted no business and maintained no offices in California, was not directly involved in the subsidiary's operations, and typically 2 Harris's related argument that respondents consented to personal jurisdiction in Nevada by assuming this role as to BCIT shares largely reargues that respondents had sufficient contacts with Nevada for personal jurisdiction and misconstrues | 1 | 1 |
Bails v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Bails v. State, 92 Nev. 95, 97 , 545 P.2d 1155, 1156 (1976). 2016See Bails v. State, 92 Nev. 95, 97 , 545 P.2d 1155, 1156 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alex Berezovsky v. Bank of America
green
2 sentences2019Op. 36, 417 P.3d at 368 (quoting Berezousky, 869 F.3d at 929 ). 2019Op. 36, 417 P.3d at 368 (quoting Berezousky, 869 F.3d at 929 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Saticoy Bay LLC v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
green
2 sentences2019Op. 36, 417 P.3d at 368 (quoting Berezousky, 869 F.3d at 929 ). 2019Op. 36, 417 P.3d at 368 (quoting Berezousky, 869 F.3d at 929 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
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.