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 2013–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tavares v. Stategreen2 sentences2015He has thus failed to demonstrate that he had the right to a Tavares instruction, see 117 Nev. at 730-31 , 30 P.3d at 1131 (providing the right to a limiting jury instruction for evidence admitted pursuant to NRS 48.045(2)), modified in part by Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263 , 182 P.3d 106 (2008). 2015He has thus failed to demonstrate that he had the right to a Tavares instruction, see 117 Nev. at 730-31 , 30 P.3d at 1131 (providing the right to a limiting jury instruction for evidence admitted pursuant to NRS 48.045(2)), modified in part by Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263 , 182 P.3d 106 (2008). | 3 | 3 |
Tinch v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776 ; see also Tinch, 113 Nev. at 1176 , 946 P.2d at 1065 . 2024Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776 ; see also Tinch, 113 Nev. at 1176 , 946 P.2d at 1065 . | 2 | 2 |
McLellan v. Stategreen2 sentences2015He has thus failed to demonstrate that he had the right to a Tavares instruction, see 117 Nev. at 730-31 , 30 P.3d at 1131 (providing the right to a limiting jury instruction for evidence admitted pursuant to NRS 48.045(2)), modified in part by Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263 , 182 P.3d 106 (2008). 2015He has thus failed to demonstrate that he had the right to a Tavares instruction, see 117 Nev. at 730-31 , 30 P.3d at 1131 (providing the right to a limiting jury instruction for evidence admitted pursuant to NRS 48.045(2)), modified in part by Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263 , 182 P.3d 106 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
Crew v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See NRS 50.085(3); Crew v. State, 100 Nev. 38, 45 , 675 P.2d 986, 990-91 (1984) (the trial court has discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination, albeit more limited when the purpose of the inquiry is to expose bias, so long as sufficient cross-examination has been permitted to satisfy the Confrontation Clause); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 5547 (1988) ("[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever 1 Prior to trial, the defense stated that it would decide at trial whether it wanted 2013See NRS 50.085(3); Crew v. State, 100 Nev. 38, 45 , 675 P.2d 986, 990-91 (1984) (the trial court has discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination, albeit more limited when the purpose of the inquiry is to expose bias, so long as sufficient cross-examination has been permitted to satisfy the Confrontation Clause); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 5547 (1988) ("[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever 1 Prior to trial, the defense stated that it would decide at trial whether it wanted | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Owensgreen1 sentence2013See NRS 50.085(3); Crew v. State, 100 Nev. 38, 45 , 675 P.2d 986, 990-91 (1984) (the trial court has discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination, albeit more limited when the purpose of the inquiry is to expose bias, so long as sufficient cross-examination has been permitted to satisfy the Confrontation Clause); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 5547 (1988) ("[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever 1 Prior to trial, the defense stated that it would decide at trial whether it wanted | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences2024Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776 ; see also Tinch, 113 Nev. at 1176 , 946 P.2d at 1065 . 2024Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776 ; see also Tinch, 113 Nev. at 1176 , 946 P.2d at 1065 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
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.