Skip to main content
· 10/6/2005

Lader v. Warden, Northern Nevada Correctional Center

Citations

  • 120 P.3d 1164
  • 121 Nev. 682
  • 121 Nev. Adv. Rep. 69
  • 2005 Nev. LEXIS 87

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that we give deference to the district court's factual findings when reviewing its resolution of a postconviction petition but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo
  • explaining that we give deference to the district court's factual findings but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo
  • giving deference to the district court's factual findings but reviewing its legal conclusions de novo
  • using similar reasoning for review of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
  • deferring to the district court's factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong, but reviewing its application of the law to those facts de novo
  • deferring to the district court’s factual findings that are supported by substantial 8 evidence and not clearly wrong, but reviewing its application of the law to those facts de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rose, Gibbons, Hardesty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.