Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 Nev. 1084 - Dickerson v. State

Dickerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Pellegrini v. State (2001), State v. Huebler (2012)

3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

1401998200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar · Lozada v. State · Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair · Welfare Division of the Nevada State Department of Health v. Washoe County Welfare Department · Luckett v. Warden, Nevada State Prison

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “dismissal of the petition as untimely will unduly prejudice the petitioner.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The purpose of a remittitur, aside from returning the record on appeal to the district court, is twofold: it divests this court of jurisdiction over the appeal and returns jurisdiction to the district court, and it formally informs the district court of this court's final resolution of the appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “within the meaning of NRS 34.726(1) because nothing has happened. 101 Moreover, to construe the statute any other way would lead to absurd results.... If the appeal referred to in NRS 34.726(1) meant any appeal, whether this court obtained jurisdiction or not, petitioners would be able to file successive notices of appeal year after year and thus perpetually re-start the one-year limitation period. Clearly, this is not what the legislature envisioned. Indeed, this court has already noted that the statutory time periods are intended to prevent such results.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.