Nevada

Calder v. Bull in Nevada Law

How Calder v. Bull applies in Nevada: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.

State Approach

Nevada adheres to the principle established in Calder v. Bull that prohibits ex post facto laws. This aligns with the broader constitutional protections afforded under both state and federal law.

State Rule
Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 15 explicitly forbids ex post facto laws, reinforcing the legal principles determined in Calder v. Bull.
Significant State Cases

State v. Soren

The court held that a retrospective application of a statute that increases punishment for a crime violates the ex post facto clause.

Kirk v. State

The court determined that changing the rules of evidence applicable to pending cases constituted an ex post facto law.

Gordon v. State

Reinstatement of penalties that were previously abolished could not be applied retroactively under Nevada's commitment to prohibiting ex post facto laws.

Comparison to Federal Law

Nevada's approach to ex post facto laws closely mirrors the federal standard applied in Calder v. Bull, recognizing that laws which retroactively change the legal consequences of prior actions infringe upon individual rights.

Bar Exam Note

Understanding the prohibition of ex post facto laws is crucial for the Nevada bar exam, particularly in Constitutional Law questions regarding legislative retroactivity.

Practice Pointers
  • Always cite the relevant sections of the Nevada Constitution when discussing ex post facto issues.
  • Refer to recent state cases that exemplify the application of ex post facto principles in practice.
  • Prepare to differentiate between civil and criminal applications of ex post facto laws in Nevada.

Master State-Specific Law with Briefly

Get AI-powered state case analyses, bar exam prep, and comprehensive study tools.