Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — appointed by Harry S. Truman
State v. Lindsay
Nevada Supreme Court · 1945-08-06 · cited 8×
In State v. Lindsay, the defendant was convicted of robbery and appealed solely on the ground that the district attorney committed misconduct by asking a prosecution witness on cross-examination whether the witness and the defendant had served time together in a Washington prison, which the defense argued improperly suggested the defendant's involvement in a prior unrelated crime. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the question was erroneous and should not have been asked, as it did not fall within any exception to the general rule against evidence of independent crimes, but concluded that the error did not require reversal. The court reasoned that Nevada law (N.C.L. sec. 11266) precludes reversal absent an affirmative showing of a miscarriage of justice or actual prejudice to the defendant, and that no such prejudice occurred here because the defendant's guilt was clearly established by his voluntary confession to an FBI agent and corroborating testimony from a participant in the robbery; additionally, similar evidence linking the defendant to the Washington prison had already been admitted without objection. The judgment of conviction was therefore affirmed.
criminal lawprocedure
Johnston v. Delay
Nevada Supreme Court · 1945-05-04 · cited 19×
This case involved a dispute over possession of property in Clark County, Nevada, owned by plaintiffs Johnston and Ward as tenants in common. Ward executed a lease with defendants DeLay and others without Johnston's knowledge or consent, after which defendants took possession, made improvements, and operated businesses on the premises; plaintiffs then obtained appointment of a receiver who took control of the property, prompting defendants' counterclaim for damages. The trial court denied plaintiffs' claims for possession and damages but awarded defendants damages for wrongful eviction. On appeal, the court sustained the denial of plaintiffs' claims but reversed the damages award to defendants. The core reasoning was that the lease required both co-owners' assent to be valid, and there was no basis for damages because the wrongfulness of the receiver's appointment was neither alleged nor found in the record, with the evidence contradicting the pleadings.
propertyprocedure
Johnston v. Delay
Nevada Supreme Court · 1945-05-04 · cited 19×
This case involved a dispute over possession of property in Clark County, Nevada, owned by plaintiffs Johnston and Ward as tenants in common. Ward executed a lease with defendants DeLay and others without Johnston's knowledge or consent, after which defendants took possession, made improvements, and operated businesses on the premises; plaintiffs then obtained appointment of a receiver who took control of the property, prompting defendants' counterclaim for damages. The trial court denied plaintiffs' claims for possession and damages but awarded defendants damages for wrongful eviction. On appeal, the court sustained the denial of plaintiffs' claims but reversed the damages award to defendants. The core reasoning was that the lease required both co-owners' assent to be valid, and there was no basis for damages because the wrongfulness of the receiver's appointment was neither alleged nor found in the record, with the evidence contradicting the pleadings.
propertyprocedure
Kohlsaat v. Kohlsaat
Nevada Supreme Court · 1945-01-29 · cited 7×
In Kohlsaat v. Kohlsaat, the respondent sought and obtained a divorce decree based on three years of separation under Nevada law, while the appellant raised counterclaims of cruelty, adultery, and desertion and challenged procedural rulings at trial. The appellant contended that the trial court erred by refusing to set aside an implied waiver of jury trial, denying a continuance for counsel to arrive, granting the divorce despite evidence of the respondent's fault, and declining to adopt additional proposed findings. The court held that the jury trial was validly waived under the statute requiring a demand within five days of notice of setting, with the trial court's refusal constituting assent, and found no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance or the divorce itself. It further ruled that proof of the other spouse's misconduct did not compel denial of a separation-based divorce and that the adopted findings sufficiently supported the judgment without needing additional ones on immaterial issues. The judgment and orders were affirmed.
family lawprocedure
Canepa v. Durham
Nevada Supreme Court · 1944-12-04 · cited 14×
This case involved a 1936 agreement for the sale of approximately 382 acres of real property near Reno, Nevada, under which the buyers (Canepas) were to obtain a partial release from existing Federal Land Bank trust deeds covering 12 acres reserved by the sellers (Durhams), pay two promissory notes, and assume certain payments, while the sellers were to satisfy a chattel mortgage on hay. The buyers failed to secure the release by the January 1, 1940 deadline or pay the notes, leading the sellers to sell the 12 acres to a third party in 1939 and later seek rescission of the contract in 1942. The trial court granted rescission to the sellers, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a partial failure of performance does not justify rescission unless it defeats the contract's object or concerns a matter of prime importance, and that monetary compensation for any damages would be an adequate remedy instead.
propertyprocedure
Canepa v. Durham
Nevada Supreme Court · 1944-12-04 · cited 14×
This case involved a 1936 agreement for the sale of approximately 382 acres of real property near Reno, Nevada, under which the buyers (Canepas) were to obtain a partial release from existing Federal Land Bank trust deeds covering 12 acres reserved by the sellers (Durhams), pay two promissory notes, and assume certain payments, while the sellers were to satisfy a chattel mortgage on hay. The buyers failed to secure the release by the January 1, 1940 deadline or pay the notes, leading the sellers to sell the 12 acres to a third party in 1939 and later seek rescission of the contract in 1942. The trial court granted rescission to the sellers, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a partial failure of performance does not justify rescission unless it defeats the contract's object or concerns a matter of prime importance, and that monetary compensation for any damages would be an adequate remedy instead.
propertyprocedure