Legal Opinion

Polk v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 2010No. 52733PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Hardesty, J.:

In this appeal, we have the duty to publicly reiterate the importance of submitting attentive appellate briefs and the unfortunate obligation to address the unforgiving consequences resulting from a respondent’s failure to respond to relevant issues raised on appeal. In his opening brief, appellant Levenral Polk argues that his constitutional right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), was violated when the findings of…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Sullivan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Nika v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2008

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. BELCHER, JR. (NORMAN) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-DIRECT)Nevada Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Natko v. StateCourt of Appeals of Nevada · 2018
  3. Bollinger (David) Vs. Warden (Death Penalty-Pc)Nevada Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Castl v. Pennymac Holdings, LlcNevada Supreme Court · 2022
  5. Davidson (Lee) v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2013

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API