Milton Benjamin Badt

This case involves a dispute between two real estate brokers, Bartsas Realty and Hershel Leverton, competing for a commission from the sale of estate property belonging to decedent Louis A. Woitishek. The probate court confirmed the sale and awarded the commission to Leverton based on findings that Bartsas did not participate in negotiations, its claim was barred by NRS 148.110, and it was never an agent for the seller. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the lower court's grounds were inapplicable and that the probate court must instead determine which broker was the procuring cause of the sale under applicable precedents. The court explained that a broker is entitled to the commission if it was the inducing cause, irrespective of later negotiations or agreements, and that the executor could not defeat a vested right by contracting with another broker.

propertyprocedure

The case involved petitioner Joseph Hicks Hudson seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the Las Vegas municipal court from trying him without a jury for violating a city ordinance that incorporated by reference the state misdemeanor of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, by taking his son into a bar. Hudson argued that because the ordinance mirrored a state statute allowing jury trials, he was constitutionally entitled to one, and the municipal court lacked jurisdiction without providing it. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the state constitutional right to jury trial preserves only the right as it existed at common law for non-petty offenses, and this misdemeanor was a petty offense triable summarily without a jury; the court further noted that the same act could be punished under both municipal and state law without constitutional violation and that no statute guaranteed a jury in municipal court proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Boyd v. McDonald, the McDonalds, owners of a motel on Lot 22, claimed implied easements over adjacent Lot 121 (owned by the Boyds) for a driveway extension, building overhang, patio, and a motel sign, based on prior common ownership by the Johnsons and continued use after the lots were severed. The trial court granted the easements for the building, patio, light and air, roadway, and sign. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that implied easements require unity of title followed by separation, apparent and continuous use, and reasonable necessity (which it equated with the parties' intent at severance), none of which were sufficiently shown here as the uses were not necessary for the motel's operation and no intent to create easements was evident from the original transaction.

property

The case involved attorney Richard P. Wait's petition for a writ to compel the district court to allow him to continue representing two of three defendants (Pearl Davenport and Boyd Turpin) in a tort action brought by Geraldine Wilson for injuries allegedly caused by a grocery clerk's actions at Reno Market Spot. Wait had sought to withdraw from representing the third defendant, Earl Davenport, due to Earl's threats tied to unrelated marital and property disputes with Pearl, but the trial court enjoined Wait from appearing for any of the defendants on conflict-of-interest grounds. The court treated the petition as one for certiorari and held that the trial court properly permitted Wait's withdrawal from Earl's representation but lacked authority to bar him from the other clients, as no actual conflict existed that would prevent continued representation of Pearl and Turpin. The reasoning centered on the confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship and the absence of adverse interests among the remaining parties in the tort litigation itself.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved petitioner Garnick seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent her trial on an amended information charging her with issuing a check against insufficient funds under NRS 205.130, after her prior guilty plea was vacated via habeas corpus. The court held that the original information was valid and sufficient because it stated the offense in plain language enabling a person of common understanding to know what was intended, without prejudicing any substantial right. It further ruled that the amended information was ineffectual as surplusage since the prosecutor did not obtain leave of court to file it under NRS 173.100, and that the not guilty plea to the original information remained in effect for trial. The petition was denied and proceedings dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellants Olga Bond and Evelyn Adams, who were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of the felony of attempted abortion under Nevada law after undercover agents arranged a procedure using substances and instruments on a patient. They appealed their convictions and the denial of a new trial, raising multiple issues including entrapment by police, whether their actions amounted only to preparation rather than an attempt, the denial of separate trials, the admission of prior arrest evidence, jury instructions on self-incrimination, and the sufficiency of the information. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that the evidence showed the appellants initiated the criminal acts beyond mere preparation without inducement by officers, that joint trial was proper absent good cause for severance, and that other claims regarding evidence, instructions, and procedure lacked merit under applicable statutes and precedents.

criminal lawabortionprocedure