William Edwin Orr

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved a divorce action brought by George Harris against Annabelle Harris on the ground of three years' separation, with the wife filing a cross-complaint seeking separate maintenance. A jury returned a special verdict answering specific questions, including findings on residency, separation, and fault, after which the trial court granted the husband a divorce. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment on appeal from the judgment roll alone, holding that the special verdict failed to include all essential facts necessary to support the decree, such as those required to establish the grounds for divorce under Nevada law, and that nothing could be supplied by implication. Because the verdict was insufficient to sustain the judgment and the error appeared on the face of the record, the court ordered a new trial rather than directing entry of judgment for either party.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a divorce action brought by George Harris against Annabelle Harris on the ground of three years' separation, with the wife filing a cross-complaint seeking separate maintenance. A jury returned a special verdict answering specific questions, including findings on residency, separation, and fault, after which the trial court granted the husband a divorce. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment on appeal from the judgment roll alone, holding that the special verdict failed to include all essential facts necessary to support the decree, such as those required to establish the grounds for divorce under Nevada law, and that nothing could be supplied by implication. Because the verdict was insufficient to sustain the judgment and the error appeared on the face of the record, the court ordered a new trial rather than directing entry of judgment for either party.

family lawprocedure

The case involved an employee with no prior mining or mill experience who was hired by Pershing Quicksilver Company to work in its mercury recovery mill and later developed chronic mercury poisoning. He sued the company for negligence, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace through inadequate ventilation, lack of protective equipment or warnings about hazards, and insufficient cleaning facilities. The trial court awarded judgment to the employee, and the appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that mercury fumes in the mill were the proximate cause of the injury and that the employer had a duty to furnish safe working conditions under both statute and common law.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a receiver of an insolvent life insurance company seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent a district court from ordering him to endorse a check representing life insurance proceeds claimed by the widow of a deceased policyholder whose policy had been reinsured. The court declined to issue the writ. It reasoned that the receiver had an adequate remedy by appeal from any adverse order, as the check's payment had been stopped by the reinsurer, preventing irreparable harm, and the funds had not yet entered the estate, distinguishing the situation from cases where appeal rights would be unavailable.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who sued multiple defendants for damages arising from an alleged assault and battery committed by one defendant acting as a guard and bouncer at a club, claiming the other defendants were liable as owners, employers, or encouragers of the act. After obtaining a writ of attachment on the defendants' property, the trial court granted a motion to discharge it, and the plaintiff appealed. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts showing the defendants had criminally incurred the obligation through the assault, which is a statutory ground for attachment under Nevada law, and that the supporting affidavit was adequate. It further reasoned that defenses regarding ownership or involvement could not be resolved on a motion to dissolve the attachment but must be addressed in the main action. The court therefore reversed the order discharging the writ.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over costs claimed by the appellant in an appeal. The appellant's cost bill included $42.70 for copying two volumes of the record, but the respondent objected on the grounds that the volumes were original exhibits filed in the trial court and not transcribed or copied. After reviewing correspondence between counsel and inspecting the volumes, the court determined they were indeed original exhibits. Relying on precedent that no allowance is permitted for copying originals, the court reduced the allowed amount for the typing bill of exceptions from $185.80 to $143.10 while sustaining the clerk's ruling in all other respects.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over costs claimed by the appellant in an appeal. The appellant's cost bill included $42.70 for copying two volumes of the record, but the respondent objected on the grounds that the volumes were original exhibits filed in the trial court and not transcribed or copied. After reviewing correspondence between counsel and inspecting the volumes, the court determined they were indeed original exhibits. Relying on precedent that no allowance is permitted for copying originals, the court reduced the allowed amount for the typing bill of exceptions from $185.80 to $143.10 while sustaining the clerk's ruling in all other respects.

procedure

In Buaas v. Buaas, the respondent husband obtained a divorce from the appellant wife on grounds of extreme cruelty, with the trial court also dividing the parties' community property located in both Nevada and California. The wife appealed, arguing that the property division exceeded the pleadings and that a Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over out-of-state real estate, and that the complaint's allegations of extreme cruelty were insufficient. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issues joined in the pleadings (including the cross-complaint and reply) authorized the division under the general prayer for relief, that the court could validly act in personam to direct the parties regarding California property, and that the statutory language in the complaint adequately stated a cause for extreme cruelty. The court noted that Nevada statutes permit property disposition as just and equitable and allow pleading divorce causes in the words of the statute.

family lawprocedureproperty

The case concerned whether an action to recover community property interests from an estate was commenced within the statute of limitations period. The court held that the action was not timely commenced because the summons had not been properly issued by delivering it to a qualified server before the deadline expired. The reasoning was that under Nevada law, "issuance" of a summons requires not only signing and sealing but also delivery to the sheriff or other authorized person with intent to serve, which did not occur here until after the limitations period had run, and the defense was properly raised in the answer.

procedure

This case involved contractors who performed reconstruction, repairs, and new construction on a ranch property and later filed a mechanic's lien after a payment dispute with the owners. The district court entered judgment for the contractors in the amount of $2,910.69 plus costs and $750 in attorney fees, declaring it a lien on the described premises. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the trial court's factual findings on issues such as material discounts, change orders, extras, and the land area needed for convenient use of the buildings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. The court noted that questions of fact resolved by the trial court in favor of the lienholders would be upheld where any substantial supporting evidence existed.

property

The case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Standard Slag Co. challenging a district court's jurisdiction to allow another mining company to exercise eminent domain over part of the Bluestone lode mining claim to expand an open-pit mining operation for extracting brucite ore. The Nevada Supreme Court had previously denied the writ by order and here affirmed that decision after considering the petition's allegations that the expansion would require removing overburden from the claim to access additional ore more economically. The court reasoned that Nevada statutes, particularly paragraph 6 of section 9153 N.C.L., authorize eminent domain for mining purposes as a public use, that the open-pit method and associated stripping and bench extensions fall within the statute's purpose and the state's policy favoring mine development, and that questions such as whether the land was already in similar use or would be damaged were for the district court to decide in the condemnation proceeding. The court also rejected claims of due process violations from shortened hearing times, noting statutory compliance and the opportunity for continuances below.

propertyprocedure

In Mortimer v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., the court considered whether a minute entry or a later written and signed order should control as the official record of a trial court's judgment, particularly in the context of an order attempting to fix attorney fees. The court decided that the written order prevails over the minute entry as the binding evidence of the judgment rendered. The core reasoning was that long-standing practice treats the signed decree as the conclusive judgment until corrected by appropriate proceedings, providing a clear standard to avoid confusion and ensuring that any discrepancies are addressed through motions to make the decree speak the truth rather than by relying on other records like reporter notes or recollections.

procedure

The case concerned a petition by the administrator of Harry F. Powell's estate to sell real and personal property, including the New Jerusalem ranch and Hot Springs property, to fund necessary repairs to irrigation infrastructure, cover unliquidated claims, and pay administration expenses. The district court overruled objections from the administratrix of the sole heir's estate and granted the order of sale. On appeal from the judgment roll alone, the court reversed, concluding that the petition omitted multiple required elements under the governing statute, such as details on personal property, outstanding debts, and expenses, and that the sale order failed to recite sufficient facts to cure the deficiencies.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a petition by the administrator of Harry F. Powell's estate to sell real and personal property, including the New Jerusalem ranch and Hot Springs property, to fund necessary repairs to irrigation infrastructure, cover unliquidated claims, and pay administration expenses. The district court overruled objections from the administratrix of the sole heir's estate and granted the order of sale. On appeal from the judgment roll alone, the court reversed, concluding that the petition omitted multiple required elements under the governing statute, such as details on personal property, outstanding debts, and expenses, and that the sale order failed to recite sufficient facts to cure the deficiencies.

propertyprocedure