Nevada Supreme Court· 11/24/2010
State v. Castaneda
Citations
- 245 P.3d 550
- 126 Nev. 478
- 71 A.L.R. 6th 739
- 126 Nev. Adv. Rep. 45
- 2010 Nev. LEXIS 49
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that a judicial gloss on an uncertain term may cure vagueness
- clarifying that “the vagueness tests are independent and alternative, not conjunctive”
- \[M]athematical precision is not possible in drafting statutory language.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- applying common law definitions to NRS 201.220
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Pickering, Parraguirre, Hardesty, Douglas, Cherry, Saitta, Gibbons
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ford v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2011-09-29· cited 36×
- Clancy v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2013-11-27· cited 24×
- Carrigan v. Commission on EthicsNevada Supreme Court· 2013-11-27· cited 16×
- State v. HughesNevada Supreme Court· 2011-09-29· cited 15×
- Las Vegas Development Group, LLC v. YfantisD. Nevada· 2016-03-24· cited 13×
- Guerrina v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2018-06-07· cited 12×
- Francis v. PeopleSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2015-10-23· cited 10×
- State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.Nevada Supreme Court· 2018-12-06· cited 9×
- Busefink v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2012-10-04· cited 6×
- SENA (CHRISTOPHER) v. STATENevada Supreme Court· 2022-05-26· cited 4×
- MARTINEZ, JR. (JESUS) v. STATENevada Supreme Court· 2024-11-07· cited 3×
- VAUGHN (KENNETH) v. STATENevada Supreme Court· 2025-02-06· cited 2×
- ENGLE (JULIE) v. DIST. CT. (STATE) (CRIMINAL)Nevada Supreme Court· 2026-04-16· cited 1×
- Carrigan v. Nev. Comm'n on EthicsNevada Supreme Court· 2013-11-27
- Quisano v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2016-02-18
- Bowman v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2016-04-28
- GUERRINA (ROBERT) VS. STATENevada Supreme Court· 2018-06-07
- SHUE (JOSHUA) VS. STATENevada Supreme Court· 2017-12-14
- MALFITANO VS. CTY. OF STOREYNevada Supreme Court· 2017-06-29
- PIMENTEL, III (LUIS) VS. STATENevada Supreme Court· 2017-06-22
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1973-06-25· cited 4,338×
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1973-10-09· cited 3,038×
- United States v. LanierSupreme Court· 1997-03-31· cited 2,070×
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 1,862×
- United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court· 2008-05-19· cited 1,677×
- City of Chicago v. MoralesSupreme Court· 1999-06-10· cited 1,379×
- Coates v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court· 1971-06-01· cited 1,269×
- Skilling v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2010-06-24· cited 987×
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.Supreme Court· 1991-06-21· cited 844×
- Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica FoundationSupreme Court· 1978-10-02· cited 761×
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law ProjectSupreme Court· 2010-06-21· cited 703×
- Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court· 1989-06-23· cited 624×
- Hooper v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1895-01-14· cited 490×
- Murray v. Schooner Charming BetsySupreme Court· 1804-02-22· cited 400×
- Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties UnionSupreme Court· 2002-05-13· cited 386×
- Silvar v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of ClarkNevada Supreme Court· 2006-03-16· cited 74×
- Wicks v. City of CharlottesvilleSupreme Court of Virginia· 1974-10-14· cited 69×
- State v. GalbreathWashington Supreme Court· 1966-11-03· cited 68×
- People v. VronkoMichigan Court of Appeals· 1998-06-17· cited 59×
- Flamingo Paradise Gaming, LLC v. ChanosNevada Supreme Court· 2009-09-24· cited 49×
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.