6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1879–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ricketts v. Adamsongreen2 sentences2017Id. at 10 . 2017Id. at 10. | 1 | 2 |
Phillips v. Mercergreen2 sentences2022See Phillips v. Mercer, 94 Nev. 279, 283, 579 P.2d 174, 176 (1978). 6 We note that Churchill Village, 361 F.3d at 575, concerned whether a proposed class settlement was fair and adequate, an explicit requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereas the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain the same requirement. 2022See Phillips v. Mercer, 94 Nev. 279, 283, 579 P.2d 174, 176 (1978). 6 We note that Churchill Village, 361 F.3d at 575, concerned whether a proposed class settlement was fair and adequate, an explicit requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereas the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain the same requirement. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 785460green2 sentences2022See Phillips v. Mercer, 94 Nev. 279, 283 , 579 P.2d 174, 176 (1978). 6 We note that Churchill Village, 361 F.3d at 575, concerned whether a proposed class settlement was fair and adequate, an explicit requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereas the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain the same requirement. 2022See Phillips v. Mercer, 94 Nev. 279, 283, 579 P.2d 174, 176 (1978). 6 We note that Churchill Village, 361 F.3d at 575, concerned whether a proposed class settlement was fair and adequate, an explicit requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereas the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain the same requirement. | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeSantosgreen2 sentences2000State v. DeSantos, 91 N.M. 428 , 575 P.2d 612, 614 (Ct.App.1978). 2000State v. DeSantos, 91 N.M. 428 , 575 P.2d 612, 614 (Ct.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Redd v. Brooke
green
2 sentences1995When it required “unequivocal language” in the divorce decree itself, this court reasoned that “it is a simple matter to include an explicit waiver or relinquishment of the right of the beneficiary to take under the policy when the decree is drawn.” Id. at 11 , 604 P.2d at 361 . 1995When it required “unequivocal language” in the divorce decree itself, this court reasoned that “it is a simple matter to include an explicit waiver or relinquishment of the right of the beneficiary to take under the policy when the decree is drawn.” Id. at 11 , 604 P.2d at 361 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1879(State v. Smith, 10 Nev. 106 ; Gaudette v. Travis, 11 Id. 149 ; Solen v. V. & T. 1879(State v. Smith, 10 Nev. 106 ; Gaudette v. Travis, 11 Id. 149 ; Solen v. V. & T. | 1 | 1879–1879 |
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.