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 2 courts 1997–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crump v. Wardengreen2 sentences2020And attorney error that does not rise the level of ineffective assistance of counsel is not an impediment external to the defense because the attorney is acting as the agent of the petitioner and the petitioner bears the risk of attorney error.4 See Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 304 , 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997). 2020And attorney error that does not rise the level of ineffective assistance of counsel is not an impediment external to the defense because the attorney is acting as the agent of the petitioner and the petitioner bears the risk of attorney error.4 See Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 304 , 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997). | 5 | 5 |
Coleman v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2017Generally, "mere attorney error, not rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, such as attorney ignorance or inadvertence," will not constitute cause to overcome a procedural bar "because the attorney is the petitioner's agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation, and the petitioner must 'bear the risk of attorney error." Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 304 , 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 753 (1991)). 2017Generally, "mere attorney error, not rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, such as attorney ignorance or inadvertence," will not constitute cause to overcome a procedural bar "because the attorney is the petitioner's agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation, and the petitioner must 'bear the risk of attorney error." Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 304 , 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 753 (1991)). | 4 | 5 |
Maples v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2017But there is an "essential difference between a claim of attorney error, however egregious, and a claim that an attorney had essentially abandoned his client." Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 282 (2012). 2017But there is an "essential difference between a claim of attorney error, however egregious, and a claim that an attorney had essentially abandoned his client." Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 282 (2012). | 4 | 4 |
Murray v. Carriergreen1 sentence1997However, mere attorney error, not rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, such as attorney ignorance or inadvertence, “is not ‘cause’ because the attorney is the petitioner’s agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation, and the petitioner must ‘bear the risk of attorney error.’ ” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
green
2 sentences1997In Stewart v. Warden, 92 Nev. 588, 589 , 555 P.2d 218 , 219 (1976), appellant had requested that his attorney raise certain claims of error for his direct appeal. 1997In Stewart v. Warden, 92 Nev. 588, 589 , 555 P.2d 218 , 219 (1976), appellant had requested that his attorney raise certain claims of error for his direct appeal. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.