6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Mooregreen2 sentences2022Thus, we have the ability to review appellants' evidentiary challenges, and nothing in Rust precludes our review. give a definitive ruling on a pretrial 'notion, the contemporaneous objection rule requires the party to object at trial in order to preserve its argument on appeal); Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299 , 757 P.2d 361, 362 (1988) ([F]ailure to object to a ruling or order of the court results in waiver of the objection and such objection may not be considered on appeal."); see also NRS 47.040(1)(a) (requiring "a timely objection or motion to strike . . . statin 2022Thus, we have the ability to review appellants' evidentiary challenges, and nothing in Rust precludes our review. give a definitive ruling on a pretrial 'notion, the contemporaneous objection rule requires the party to object at trial in order to preserve its argument on appeal); Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299 , 757 P.2d 361, 362 (1988) ([F]ailure to object to a ruling or order of the court results in waiver of the objection and such objection may not be considered on appeal."); see also NRS 47.040(1)(a) (requiring "a timely objection or motion to strike . . . statin | 3 | 3 |
Quiana M. B. v. State Department of Family Servicesgreen2 sentences2022Thus, we have the ability to review appellants' evidentiary challenges, and nothing in Rust precludes our review. give a definitive ruling on a pretrial 'notion, the contemporaneous objection rule requires the party to object at trial in order to preserve its argument on appeal); Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299 , 757 P.2d 361, 362 (1988) ([F]ailure to object to a ruling or order of the court results in waiver of the objection and such objection may not be considered on appeal."); see also NRS 47.040(1)(a) (requiring "a timely objection or motion to strike . . . statin 2022Thus, we have the ability to review appellants' evidentiary challenges, and nothing in Rust precludes our review. give a definitive ruling on a pretrial 'notion, the contemporaneous objection rule requires the party to object at trial in order to preserve its argument on appeal); Landmark Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. Moore, 104 Nev. 297, 299 , 757 P.2d 361, 362 (1988) ([F]ailure to object to a ruling or order of the court results in waiver of the objection and such objection may not be considered on appeal."); see also NRS 47.040(1)(a) (requiring "a timely objection or motion to strike . . . statin | 2 | 2 |
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Tarkaniangreen1 sentence1994Under these facts, . . . the NCAA acted jointly with UNLV.” NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 203 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barker Vs. Bebout Concrete Constr., Llc
neutral
1 sentence2022Op. 38, 492 P.3d 1 , 5 (2021) (concluding that a reasonable possibility does not exist "[w]hen the results of the analysis would be irrelevant to the States theory of the crime or the defendant's defense). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mahan v. Hafen
green
2 sentences1988Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220 , 351 P.2d 617 (1960). 1988Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220 , 351 P.2d 617 (1960). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.