6 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Kapordelisgreen2 sentences2015See also United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009) ("This Court has not, however, stated a precise standard of review for a district court's denial of a Franks hearing[, and] we need not determine which standard of review applies today."). 2015See also United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009) ("This Court has not, however, stated a precise standard of review for a district court's denial of a Franks hearing[, and] we need not determine which standard of review applies today."). | 3 | 3 |
Larrison v. United Statesred1 sentence1995Appellant urges us, in recantation cases, to deviate from the general “newly discovered evidence” standard and to adopt the standard set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87 (5th Cir. 1928). | 1 | 1 |
Washoe Medical Center, Inc. v. Lyon Countygreen2 sentences1992See Washoe Medical Center v. Lyon County, 107 Nev. 493 , 495 n.3, 813 P.2d 1008 , 1010 n.3 (1991) (“[w]e are not persuaded that the procedure in NRS 439B.330(3) serves to rescind the more precise requirement in NRS 450.400”). 1992See Washoe Medical Center v. Lyon County, 107 Nev. 493 , 495 n.3, 813 P.2d 1008 , 1010 n.3 (1991) (“[w]e are not persuaded that the procedure in NRS 439B.330(3) serves to rescind the more precise requirement in NRS 450.400”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Though not a precise standard, the requirement to control dust was sufficiently clear to give John Lawrence notice that its activities were in violation of its permit, and thus in violation of NAC 445.696. 4 Just as regulations that do not implicate constitutional rights need not be as precise as those that do, greater tolerance for inexactitude exists for regulations which carry a civil rather than a criminal penalty for their violation “because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.” 455 U.S. at 499 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.