Legal Opinion

Lioce v. Cohen

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 2006No. 44458, 44823, 45331, 45405PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Hardesty, J.:

The defendants in each of the four underlying personal injury cases were represented by the same attorney, who gave substantially the same closing argument on behalf of his clients at each trial. Asserting that defense counsel’s closing arguments constituted misconduct, the plaintiffs in each case sought new trials, with varying success. These consolidated appeals from the district court orders granting or denying new trials followed.

Because defense counsel’s closing arguments encouraged the jurors to look beyond the law and the relevant facts in deciding the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Brunzell v. Golden Gate National BankNevada Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Pearl Kehr v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Incorporated Glenn Nordskog and Jim MartinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  3. Horn v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Ringle v. BrutonNevada Supreme Court · 2004
  5. McGuire v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lioce v. CohenNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Lioce v. CohenNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Lioce v. CohenNevada Supreme Court · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API