modified rule (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

modified rule in Nevada

6 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2018 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Moody v. Manny's Auto Repairred
nev · 1994 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Id. at 120 ; see Billingsley v. Stockmen’s Hotel, 111 Nev. 1033, 1037 , 901 P.2d 141, 144 (1995) (providing that “[proprietors, like all other persons, have an obligation to act reasonably towards other persons”); Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 333 , 871 P.2d 935, 943 (1994) (maintaining that “determinations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances”).

2012Id. at 120 ; see Billingsley v. Stockmen’s Hotel, 111 Nev. 1033, 1037 , 901 P.2d 141, 144 (1995) (providing that “[proprietors, like all other persons, have an obligation to act reasonably towards other persons”); Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 333 , 871 P.2d 935, 943 (1994) (maintaining that “determinations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances”).

11
Billingsley v. Stockmen's Hotel, Inc.green
nev · 1995 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Id. at 120 ; see Billingsley v. Stockmen’s Hotel, 111 Nev. 1033, 1037 , 901 P.2d 141, 144 (1995) (providing that “[proprietors, like all other persons, have an obligation to act reasonably towards other persons”); Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 333 , 871 P.2d 935, 943 (1994) (maintaining that “determinations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances”).

2012Id. at 120 ; see Billingsley v. Stockmen’s Hotel, 111 Nev. 1033, 1037 , 901 P.2d 141, 144 (1995) (providing that “[proprietors, like all other persons, have an obligation to act reasonably towards other persons”); Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 333 , 871 P.2d 935, 943 (1994) (maintaining that “determinations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances”).

11

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Castle v. Simmons green
nev · 2004
2 sentences

2018In adopting this modified rule, Castle specifically recognized that courts must review domestic violence evidence when determining the child's best interest. 120 Nev. at 105-06 , 86 P.3d at 1047-48 .

2018In adopting this modified rule, Castle specifically recognized that courts must review domestic violence evidence when determining the child's best interest. 120 Nev. at 105-06 , 86 P.3d at 1047-48 .

52018–2018
Jacqueline E. Michalski v. The Home Depot, Inc. green
ca2 · 2000
1 sentence

2012Id. at 120 ; see Billingsley v. Stockmen’s Hotel, 111 Nev. 1033, 1037 , 901 P.2d 141, 144 (1995) (providing that “[proprietors, like all other persons, have an obligation to act reasonably towards other persons”); Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 333 , 871 P.2d 935, 943 (1994) (maintaining that “determinations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances”).

12012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.003 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.006 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 156 (1909–2026) IL 59 (1879–2026) TX 41 (1915–2025) FL 32 (1938–2025) NJ 32 (1978–2022) NM 24 (1974–2025) MO 21 (1889–2023) IN 20 (1911–2023) OH 20 (1936–2023) PA 20 (1940–2024) ID 15 (1990–2021) WA 15 (1927–2026) CO 14 (1877–2026) OR 13 (1879–2026) MD 13 (1925–2025) CT 13 (1959–2016) MI 12 (1978–2025) WV 11 (1912–2023) AL 10 (1911–2013) OK 10 (1935–2012) WI 8 (1970–2026) AZ 8 (1934–2007) MN 8 (1931–2024) MA 7 (1987–2019) AR 7 (1905–2002) KS 6 (1931–2017) IA 6 (1908–2020) NV 6 (2012–2018) NY 6 (1960–2026) KY 6 (1933–2019) DE 5 (1959–1988) MS 5 (1988–2014) UT 5 (1985–2024) SD 5 (1896–2024) ND 5 (1893–2023) GA 4 (1948–2025) VA 4 (1885–1990) NC 4 (1924–2026) MT 4 (1921–2012) HI 4 (2010–2016) AK 3 (1978–2022) LA 3 (1997–2013) NH 2 (2005–2011) WY 2 (1973–1973) VT 2 (2007–2009) TN 2 (2002–2015) RI 2 (1981–1987) DC 2 (1982–2001) SC 2 (2016–2020)

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