report requirement (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

report requirement in Nevada

6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2016 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
Goodman v. Staples the Office Super-Store, LLCgreen
ca9 · 2011 · cited in 6 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2016
2 sentences

2016"While a treating physician is exempt from the report requirement, this exemption only extends to 'opinions [that] were formed during the course of treatment." Id., 335 P.3d at 189 (quoting Goodman v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011)).

2016"While a treating physician is exempt from the report requirement, this exemption only extends to 'opinions [that] were formed during the course of treatment." Id., 335 P.3d at 189 (quoting Goodman v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011)).

66
Rock Bay, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of Clarkgreen
nev · 2013 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Court, 129 Nev. , n.3, 298 P.3d 441 , 445 n.3 (2013) (noting that when an NRCP is modeled after its federal counterpart, "cases interpreting the federal rule are strongly persuasive").

2014Court, 129 Nev. , n.3, 298 P.3d 441 , 445 n.3 (2013) (noting that when an NRCP is modeled after its federal counterpart, "cases interpreting the federal rule are strongly persuasive").

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 16.050 (4) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.005 (4) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.275 (4)

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

TX 96 (1979–2026) IL 46 (1969–2024) OH 37 (1986–2026) CA 34 (1962–2025) NY 31 (1929–2023) PA 25 (1893–2024) IN 17 (1893–2020) NJ 13 (1953–2024) MI 13 (1969–2024) MT 11 (2010–2025) KS 9 (1972–2016) CT 9 (1912–2022) LA 9 (1978–2017) ME 9 (1977–2026) MA 9 (1947–2018) WI 8 (1995–2025) MO 8 (1896–2022) CO 8 (1976–2025) NM 8 (1982–2012) WA 7 (1941–2025) GA 7 (1940–2025) MN 7 (1944–2008) FL 7 (1991–2016) MD 7 (1968–2015) MS 7 (1968–2023) NC 6 (1966–2021) KY 6 (1880–2005) NV 6 (2014–2016) OR 5 (1994–2016) OK 5 (1996–2013) AL 5 (1858–1993) IA 5 (1970–2025) VA 4 (1990–2023) UT 4 (1980–2023) SC 4 (1906–2026) ND 4 (2001–2025) ID 3 (2010–2022) HI 3 (1996–2023) VT 3 (1912–1991) WV 3 (1897–2009) WY 2 (1975–2010) TN 2 (1955–2014)

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