6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Although “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors included in the particular venire might give rise to an inference of discrimination,” Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , “a pattern is not the only way to satisfy step one,” Cooper, 134 Nev. at 862, 432 P.3d at 205 . 2020See Cooper, 134 Nev. at 862, 432 P.3d at 205 (noting that a pattern of peremptory strikes is one way to satisfy step one of a Batson challenge requiring a prima facie showing that the strike was race-based); Williams v. State, 134 Nev. 687 , 690-91, 429 P.3d 301, 306-07 (recognizing that step one of a Batson challenge is moot when the State offers a race-neutral explanation); Watson v. State, 130 Nev. 764 , 776, 335 P.3d 157 , 166 (2014) ("[T]he mere fact that the State used a peremptory challenge to exclude a member of a cognizable group is not, standing alone, sufficient to establish a prima | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Cooper, 134 Nev. at 862, 432 P.3d at 205 (noting that a pattern of peremptory strikes is one way to satisfy step one of a Batson challenge requiring a prima facie showing that the strike was race-based); Williams v. State, 134 Nev. 687 , 690-91, 429 P.3d 301, 306-07 (recognizing that step one of a Batson challenge is moot when the State offers a race-neutral explanation); Watson v. State, 130 Nev. 764 , 776, 335 P.3d 157 , 166 (2014) ("[T]he mere fact that the State used a peremptory challenge to exclude a member of a cognizable group is not, standing alone, sufficient to establish a prima | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Julio Cesar Vasquez-Lopezgreen2 sentences2014State v. Rhone, 229 P.3d 752, 756 (Wash. 2010) (rejecting bright-line rule that peremptory challenge used against member of racially cognizable group is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Batson because such a rule would be inconsistent with Batson as it "would negate this first part of the analysis and require a prosecutor to provide an explanation every time a member of a racially cognizable group is peremptorily challenged" and would be SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 11 (0) 1947A 4 .4fr. inconsistent with what Washington court and other courts have held); see also Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F 2014State v. Rhone, 229 P.3d 752, 756 (Wash. 2010) (rejecting bright-line rule that peremptory challenge used against member of racially cognizable group is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Batson because such a rule would be inconsistent with Batson as it "would negate this first part of the analysis and require a prosecutor to provide an explanation every time a member of a racially cognizable group is peremptorily challenged" and would be SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 11 (0) 1947A 4 .4fr. inconsistent with what Washington court and other courts have held); see also Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rhonered2 sentences2014State v. Rhone, 229 P.3d 752, 756 (Wash. 2010) (rejecting bright-line rule that peremptory challenge used against member of racially cognizable group is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Batson because such a rule would be inconsistent with Batson as it "would negate this first part of the analysis and require a prosecutor to provide an explanation every time a member of a racially cognizable group is peremptorily challenged" and would be SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 11 (0) 1947A 4 .4fr. inconsistent with what Washington court and other courts have held); see also Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F 2014State v. Rhone, 229 P.3d 752, 756 (Wash. 2010) (rejecting bright-line rule that peremptory challenge used against member of racially cognizable group is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Batson because such a rule would be inconsistent with Batson as it "would negate this first part of the analysis and require a prosecutor to provide an explanation every time a member of a racially cognizable group is peremptorily challenged" and would be SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 11 (0) 1947A 4 .4fr. inconsistent with what Washington court and other courts have held); see also Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2015Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947k (observing that "the mere fact that the State used a peremptory challenge to exclude a member of a cognizable group is not, standing alone, sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson's first step"). 1998When the state used a peremptory challenge to excuse Evans, the district court questioned the state’s motive and elicited a defense objection pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). | 4 | 1998–2026 |
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.