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 1950–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2019Id. at 821-23 ; see State v. Thompson, 45 A.3d 605, 615-16 (Conn. 2012) (compiling a list of all states applying the preponderance standard as of 2012). 6 On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616, 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. 2019Id. at 821-23; see State v. Thompson, 45 A.3d 605, 615-16 (Conn. 2012) (compiling a list of all states applying the preponderance standard as of 2012). 6 On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616, 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. | 3 | 3 |
Leif Carlson, Sr. v. Attorney General of Californiagreen2 sentences2019See id. (opining that "[s]imple tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party's previously expressed decision either to skip town himself rather than testifying or to prevent another witness from appearing does not 'cause' or 'effect' or 'bring about' or 'procure' a witness's absence"); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 , 830 N.E.2d 158 , 171 (2005) (applying the forfeiture doctrine where "a defendant actively facilitates the carrying out of the witness's independent intent not to testify"). 2019See id. (opining that "Wimple tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party's previously expressed decision either to skip town himself rather than testifying or to prevent another witness from appearing does not 'cause or 'effect or 'bring about' or 'procure a witness's absence"); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 830 N.E.2d 158, 171 (Mass. 2005) (applying the forfeiture doctrine where "a defendant actively facilitates the carrying out of the witness's independent intent not to testify"). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2019See id. (opining that "[s]imple tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party's previously expressed decision either to skip town himself rather than testifying or to prevent another witness from appearing does not 'cause' or 'effect' or 'bring about' or 'procure' a witness's absence"); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 , 830 N.E.2d 158 , 171 (2005) (applying the forfeiture doctrine where "a defendant actively facilitates the carrying out of the witness's independent intent not to testify"). 2019See id. (opining that "Wimple tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party's previously expressed decision either to skip town himself rather than testifying or to prevent another witness from appearing does not 'cause or 'effect or 'bring about' or 'procure a witness's absence"); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 830 N.E.2d 158, 171 (Mass. 2005) (applying the forfeiture doctrine where "a defendant actively facilitates the carrying out of the witness's independent intent not to testify"). | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Michael G. Thevis, Alton Bart Hood, Global Industries, Inc., Anna Jeanette Evansgreen2 sentences2019On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616 , 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. 2019Id. at 821-23; see State v. Thompson, 45 A.3d 605, 615-16 (Conn. 2012) (compiling a list of all states applying the preponderance standard as of 2012). 6 On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616, 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2019On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616 , 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. 2019Id. at 821-23; see State v. Thompson, 45 A.3d 605, 615-16 (Conn. 2012) (compiling a list of all states applying the preponderance standard as of 2012). 6 On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616, 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Antoine Johnsongreen2 sentences2019Id. at 821-23 ; see State v. Thompson, 45 A.3d 605, 615-16 (Conn. 2012) (compiling a list of all states applying the preponderance standard as of 2012). 6 On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616, 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. 2019Id. at 821-23; see State v. Thompson, 45 A.3d 605, 615-16 (Conn. 2012) (compiling a list of all states applying the preponderance standard as of 2012). 6 On one end of the spectrum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Thevis that the prosecution must prove that a defendant procured the absence of a witness by clear and convincing evidence for the forfeiture exception to apply. 665 F.2d 616, 631 (5th Cir. 1982), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in United States v. Nelson, 242 Fed. | 1 | 3 |
McGill v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2022With the understanding that Nevada's "constitutional and statutory provisions relating to homesteads should be liberally construed" and require only substantial compliance, McGill v. Lewis, 61 Nev. 28, 40 , 116 P.2d 581 , 583 (1941), and that "Et]he law does not favor forfeitures and statutes imposing them must be strictly construed," Wilshire Ins. 2022With the understanding that Nevada's "constitutional and statutory provisions relating to homesteads should be liberally construed" and require only substantial compliance, McGill v. Lewis, 61 Nev. 28, 40, 116 P.2d 581, 583 (1941), and that "Et]he law does not favor forfeitures and statutes imposing them must be strictly construed," Wilshire Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Breedlove v. Breedlovegreen2 sentences2022While acknowledging that the Nevada Constitution and NRS 115.010(3) establish specific exceptions that are inapplicable here, the Sheriff, relying 5 on Breedlove v. Breedlove, 100 Nev. 606 , 691 P.2d 426 (1984), and Maki v. Chong, 119 Nev. 390 , 75 P.3d 376 (2003), asserts that public policy warrants creating a forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption. 2022While acknowledging that the Nevada Constitution and NRS 115.010(3) establish specific exceptions that are inapplicable here, the Sheriff, relying 5 on Breedlove v. Breedlove, 100 Nev. 606 , 691 P.2d 426 (1984), and Maki v. Chong, 119 Nev. 390 , 75 P.3d 376 (2003), asserts that public policy warrants creating a forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maestasgreen2 sentences2019Distinguishing between passive acquiescence and affirmative action ensures that courts apply the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause only where the defendant does more than merely approve of the witness's independent decision not to testify. 10 Edwards, 830 N.E.2d at 171 ("[A] defendant's joint effort with a witness to secure the latter's unavailability, regardless of whether the witness already decided 'on his own not to testify, may be sufficient to support a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing."); see also State v. Maestas, 412 P.3d 79, 91 (N.M. 2018). 2019Distinguishing between passive acquiescence and affirmative action ensures that courts apply the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause only where the defendant does more than merely approve of the witness's independent decision not to testify. 10 Edwards, 830 N.E.2d at 171 ("[A] defendant's joint effort with a witness to secure the latter's unavailability, regardless of whether the witness already decided 'on his own not to testify, may be sufficient to support a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing."); see also State v. Maestas, 412 P.3d 79, 91 (N.M. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maki v. Chong
green
2 sentences2022While acknowledging that the Nevada Constitution and NRS 115.010(3) establish specific exceptions that are inapplicable here, the Sheriff, relying 5 on Breedlove v. Breedlove, 100 Nev. 606 , 691 P.2d 426 (1984), and Maki v. Chong, 119 Nev. 390 , 75 P.3d 376 (2003), asserts that public policy warrants creating a forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption. 2022While acknowledging that the Nevada Constitution and NRS 115.010(3) establish specific exceptions that are inapplicable here, the Sheriff, relying 5 on Breedlove v. Breedlove, 100 Nev. 606 , 691 P.2d 426 (1984), and Maki v. Chong, 119 Nev. 390 , 75 P.3d 376 (2003), asserts that public policy warrants creating a forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property
green
2 sentences1996Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 58 , 114 S. Ct. at 503 . 1996Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 58 , 114 S. Ct. at 503 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Light, Heat & Power Co.
green
2 sentences1950It also referred to Employer’s Liability Assurance Corporation v. Light, Heat & Power Co., 28 Ind.App. 437 , 63 N.E. 54 , holding that the provision for immediate notice was of the essence of the contract. 1950It also referred to Employer’s Liability Assurance Corporation v. Light, Heat & Power Co., 28 Ind.App. 437 , 63 N.E. 54 , holding that the provision for immediate notice was of the essence of the contract. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
green
2 sentences1950The case note in 38 L.R.A., N.S., 62 deals, for the most part, with the sufficiency of the notice given, but refers to Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 100 Wis. 378 , 75 N.W. 996 , which *238 held that the requirement for notice constituted a condition precedent which the insured was bound to perform in order to maintain an action on the policy even in the absence of a forfeiture clause. 1950The case note in 38 L.R.A., N.S., 62 deals, for the most part, with the sufficiency of the notice given, but refers to Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 100 Wis. 378 , 75 N.W. 996 , which *238 held that the requirement for notice constituted a condition precedent which the insured was bound to perform in order to maintain an action on the policy even in the absence of a forfeiture clause. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.