SHERIDAN (QUASHAWN) v. STATE (CRIMINAL) [2025]

141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jurisdiction from source

International Criminal Lawinternational-criminal-lawInternational Criminal LawSource verificationCitation formats

Issue

What international criminal law issue, if any, is raised in this Nevada criminal appeal?

Held

The source excerpt does not reveal the holding. This is a source-linked holding checkpoint; candidates should confirm the full judgment before relying on it.

Exam use

On an exam, be aware that the same case may appear under different citations. Always use the most authoritative citation. Verify the holding to ensure you are not relying on a duplicate or outdated version. In problem questions, cite the official reporter when possible.

Summary

This is a duplicate record of Sheridan v. State, a 2025 Nevada Supreme Court criminal case. The source record provides the same citation (141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22) and docket number (89167) as the previous entry. The snippet is identical. As with the prior record, no substantive information is available. This serves as a source-linked checkpoint; candidates should verify the full opinion to determine its relevance to international criminal law.

Facts

The source record does not provide facts. It identifies the case as Quashawn Saquan Sheridan v. The State of Nevada, a criminal appeal. The citation is 141 Nev., Advance Opinion No. 22, and the docket number is 89167. The snippet only shows the case header. Candidates must consult the full source to understand the underlying criminal matter and any international law dimensions.

Procedural History

The case is an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. No further procedural history is available from the excerpt.

Issue

What international criminal law issue, if any, is raised in this Nevada criminal appeal?

Held

The source excerpt does not reveal the holding. This is a source-linked holding checkpoint; candidates should confirm the full judgment before relying on it.

Ratio Decidendi

No legal rule can be derived from the excerpt. Candidates should review the full opinion for any rules related to international criminal law.

Reasoning

The excerpt provides no reasoning. To use this record for exam preparation, students must access the full opinion via the source URL. The case may involve international law issues, but verification is required. This duplicate record emphasizes the importance of checking for multiple versions of the same case.

Plain-English Explanation

This is the same case as the previous one, just with a different citation format. It's like having two different covers for the same book. The content is the same, but you need to read the full opinion to understand it. Always check for duplicates in your research.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to SHERIDAN (QUASHAWN) v. STATE (CRIMINAL) (141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22) strengthens a International Criminal Law answer because the case reflects the principle that No legal rule can be derived from the excerpt. Candidates should review the full opinion for any rules related to international criminal law. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What international criminal law issue, if any, is raised in this Nevada criminal appeal? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • Source verification
  • Citation formats

Precedents Applied

  • Source-check required

Later Treatment

  • Source-check required

Significance

The significance is the same as the prior record. It may illustrate how state supreme courts address international law claims. Students should verify the full opinion to avoid duplication errors.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

On an exam, be aware that the same case may appear under different citations. Always use the most authoritative citation. Verify the holding to ensure you are not relying on a duplicate or outdated version. In problem questions, cite the official reporter when possible.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

In a problem question, if you encounter this citation, treat it as the same case as Sheridan v. State, 567 P.3d 345. Verify the holding and use it accordingly. Avoid citing both as separate authorities.

Common Pitfalls

  • Treating duplicate citations as different cases
  • Failing to verify the official citation

Sources