6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Las Vegas Fetish & Fantasy Halloween Ball, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc.green2 sentences2021See Las Vegas Fetish & Fantasy Halloween Ball, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. 124 Nev. 272, 276 , 182 P.3d 764, 767 (2008) (clarifying that to determine "whether a party's connection with an action is sufficiently offensive to bar equitable relief [under the unclean hands doctrine], two factors must be considered: (1) the egregiousness of the misconduct at issue, and (2) the seriousness of the harm caused by the misconduct."). 2021See Las Vegas Fetish & Fantasy Halloween Ball, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. 124 Nev. 272, 276 , 182 P.3d 764, 767 (2008) (clarifying that to determine "whether a party's connection with an action is sufficiently offensive to bar equitable relief [under the unclean hands doctrine], two factors must be considered: (1) the egregiousness of the misconduct at issue, and (2) the seriousness of the harm caused by the misconduct."). | 1 | 5 |
Gravelle v. Burchettgreen2 sentences2008See also Gravelle v. Burchett, 73 Nev. 333, 341-42 , 319 P.2d 140, 144-45 (1957) (noting that the unclean hands doctrine does not apply unless the misconduct at issue is “connected with the matter in litigation so that it has in some manner affected the equitable relations subsisting between the parties and arising out of the transaction”). 2008See also Gravelle v. Burchett, 73 Nev. 333, 341-42 , 319 P.2d 140, 144-45 (1957) (noting that the unclean hands doctrine does not apply unless the misconduct at issue is “connected with the matter in litigation so that it has in some manner affected the equitable relations subsisting between the parties and arising out of the transaction”). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn 2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.green2 sentences2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn 2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn | 1 | 1 |
Income Investors, Inc. v. Sheltongreen2 sentences2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn 2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn | 1 | 1 |
University & Community College System v. Nevadans for Sound Governmentgreen2 sentences2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn 2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn | 1 | 1 |
Posadas v. City of Renogreen2 sentences2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn 2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Banks Ex Rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp.
green
2 sentences2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn 2008Since Ahern has not contended that its “abuse of process” was unconnected with the subject matter or transaction in litigation, we will not address that issue further. 5 116 Nev. 598 , 610, 5 P.3d 1043, 1050-51 (2000). 6 120 Nev. 822, 843 , 102 P.3d 52 , 66 (2004). 7 See Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; cf. Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 . 8 See Evans, 116 Nev. at 610, 5 P.3d at 1050-51 ; Banks, 120 Nev. at 843 , 102 P.3d at 66 ; Income Investors, 101 P.2d at 974 ; see also Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10, 24 , 226 P.2d 279, 286 (1951) (recogn | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.