This case involved a lawsuit by Oden against European Motors, Ltd., a corporation in which he held stock, to recover unpaid salary allegedly owed under a pre-incorporation employment agreement for his services as general manager. The jury awarded Oden $6,400, and the corporation appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of any contract or corporate ratification. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the corporation's acceptance of Oden's services with knowledge of the salary terms constituted implied ratification of the agreement, even without proof of express ratification at the organizational meeting. Although Oden's testimony was impeached on some points, the evidence supported the jury's finding of an express contract, and the verdict was not disturbed despite appearing to reflect a compromise on the amount.
The case involved an executrix seeking a writ of prohibition to halt a lawsuit brought by purchasers against a decedent's estate for rescission of a land sale contract due to alleged fraud, along with restitution of payments and damages. The purchasers had not filed a timely creditor's claim under NRS 147.040, which bars untimely claims against an estate. The court denied the writ, holding that a claim seeking cancellation of a contract improperly asserted as an estate asset does not require filing under the non-claim statute because it does not diminish estate property. For the restitution aspect, equity provides a lien on the real estate, and NRS 147.150 allows actions to enforce such liens without prior claim filing if recourse against other estate assets is waived. The court thus concluded it had jurisdiction to proceed with the action for contract cancellation and related relief.
The case involved a slander lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, an officer of the United Freeway Association, against statements made by the defendant at a public hearing on interstate highway routing in Sparks, Nevada. The defendant accused the association or its sympathizers of forgery, petition theft, and fraud involving petitions, but made no reference to any specific individual. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the statements did not refer to the plaintiff, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that defamation of a large group (here, over 12,500 members plus sympathizers) is not actionable by an individual member unless the statement singles out that person, which the language here expressly did not do.
This case concerned a condemnation action by the Nevada Department of Highways to take land in Washoe County, where the State had already taken possession under an immediate occupancy order and appealed what it viewed as an excessive compensation award. The issue was whether the State must deposit the full award amount in court under NRS 37.170 as a condition of remaining in possession during the appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the statute requires such a deposit even when the State is the condemnor already in possession, reconciling it with the immediate occupancy provisions of NRS 37.100. The court reasoned that the deposit serves as a statutory condition for continued possession and appeal rights without rendering the appeal moot, since any excess could be recovered later, thereby balancing the condemnee's right to prompt payment against the State's ability to challenge the award.
This case involves the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners seeking reformation of deeds after selling the northern portion of their Las Vegas lot, which had been misdescribed due to errors in the recorded plat depth and building setback measurements. The union intended to convey only the unimproved northern section while retaining a 25-foot alleyway behind its building, but the deeds used an incorrect starting point that eliminated the alley. The trial court ruled against the union, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, finding a mutual mistake of fact supported by the record and that subsequent buyers Steel, Gray, and Cooper had notice of the union's equitable claim and thus were not bona fide purchasers. The court ordered reformation of the deeds to specify the true point of beginning 21.9 feet north of the erroneous description.
This case was an action for slander in which the defendant appealed a $10,000 judgment entered by the trial court sitting without a jury. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that striking the defendant's answer and entering default under Rule 37(d) NRCP was proper because her failure to appear for a scheduled deposition, despite notice and stipulations, was willful, and her attorney offered no explanation at the motion hearing. On claims that the damages were excessive or improperly awarded for future losses and mental suffering, the court found no basis for reversal because the appellate record lacked a trial transcript to review the evidence supporting the findings, the award did not duplicate elements of damages, and the amount was not shown to result from passion or prejudice.