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

The case concerned a lawsuit by owners of mining claims against Dinwiddie Construction Co. and its subcontractor Miller for removing 2,050 tons of diatomaceous earth from the plaintiffs' property during Navy-related construction work. The trial court found the trespass was non-willful, valued the ore in place at $8.20 per ton, and entered a joint and several judgment for $16,810; Dinwiddie appealed, raising issues about the measure of damages, burden of proof on mitigation costs, admissibility of post-judgment evidence, and a co-defendant naming issue. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that damages for innocent mineral trespass are measured by the value of the ore in place, that the defendant bears the burden of proving any deductible extraction costs (which were not established here), and that the procedural objections lacked merit because the post-judgment evidence was not properly before the court on appeal from the judgment and the naming issue did not affect the parties' liability. The court rejected Dinwiddie's attempts to introduce a subcontract or new evidence after judgment and found no error in the trial court's findings or calculations.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from parallel lawsuits filed by Brunzell Construction and Harrah's Club in California and Nevada courts over a construction contract dispute, with questions about which forum should proceed and whether one party should be enjoined from litigating in the other state. The Nevada district court denied Brunzell's motion to stay the Nevada proceedings and enjoined it from pursuing its California action against Harrah's Club. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the denial of the stay, holding that such an order is not appealable under NRCP 72(b) because appeal rights are strictly statutory. The court reversed the injunction order, reasoning that NRCP 65(c) mandates the posting of security as a prerequisite to the validity of any restraining order or preliminary injunction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over whether Elko General Hospital could recover the unpaid balance of $5,416.64 from Lander County for hospital services provided to Frank P. Grunstad, a legal resident of Lander County who died after extended treatment for cancer and was determined to lack sufficient means to pay. The hospital sued under NRS 450.400 after the county rejected responsibility following notice of the patient's admission and claimed indigence. The trial court ruled for the hospital, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute authorizes the hospital to make the initial determination of a patient's indigent status, that Grunstad met the criteria for indigence given his limited assets and income, and that the hospital's March 8, 1963 letter provided adequate statutory notice to the county despite the county's later denial of liability.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a trial court order dismissing a civil action for failure to bring it to trial within five years of filing, as required by NRCP Rule 41(e). The plaintiff had filed the complaint in July 1959, but multiple trial settings were vacated or delayed over the years due to factors including the plaintiff's schedule as an entertainer, the involvement of out-of-state counsel, and court congestion, with no written stipulation extending the time limit. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the five-year rule is mandatory and unambiguous, requiring dismissal absent a written stipulation even if the court might have accommodated a timely request, and that discretion does not apply after the period expires. The court noted that many delays were attributable to the plaintiff and her counsel, and it followed prior precedents interpreting the rule strictly.

procedure

Cooper sued the Nevada Bank of Commerce for conversion, claiming the bank improperly applied crop sale proceeds deposited by Bailey (who leased Cooper's land) to Bailey's personal overdraft and loan debt instead of paying Cooper his 10-20% landlord share. The trial court granted the bank's Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss at the close of Cooper's case. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for all pre-November 20, 1963 deposits, holding that the bank lacked actual knowledge or facts triggering a duty to inquire about Cooper's interest until his written demand, and Bailey had treated the funds as his own. It reversed in part and ordered a limited new trial only to calculate Cooper's share of crop proceeds deposited after the bank received that notice.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs Davis and Moranti suing defendants Jouganatos, the Greenes, and others for breach of a July 1964 letter agreement to form a 50-50 co-venture for developing 42 acres in Las Vegas into a resort hotel, where plaintiffs would secure financing and a tenant in exchange for half the profits; plaintiffs alleged defendants conspired to sell the property to a third party instead, seeking to establish their interest and $15 million in damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants under NRCP Rule 56, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that California law governed the dispute and rendered the contract unenforceable because it required unlicensed real estate brokerage services under California Business and Professions Code provisions, with the agreement being void in its entirety even though one plaintiff held a license. The court noted that the plaintiffs' efforts constituted brokerage activities tied to the land transaction, precluding recovery.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns the distribution of the estate of Carl Ray, deceased, particularly the Professional Building in Las Vegas, among his widow (under a valid antenuptial agreement entitling her to half the net trust proceeds), minor daughter (beneficiary of the other half under the will), and pretermitted heir Robert E. Barringer (who had previously been awarded one-third of the estate). The court held that Barringer and his successors are entitled only to a one-sixth interest in the property, must hold the excess one-sixth in trust for the estate trustees, and must account for one-sixth of the rents and profits received. The core reasoning is that the antenuptial agreement limited the decedent to freely disposing of only half his estate by will (the other half being contractually obligated to the widow), so Barringer's one-third intestate share applies only to that disposable half, and prior distributions occurred without full awareness of the agreement's effect. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in the consolidated appeals, with directions for further accountings and adjustments to the distribution.

family lawproperty

This case involves a wife's appeal from portions of a 1964 Nevada divorce decree concerning the division of community property, alimony, and attorneys' fees. The parties had built a restaurant business called Foxy’s, operated through a holding company, along with other investments, all treated as community property; the central dispute centered on properly valuing the business, including its goodwill, based on 1962 financial records and deposits that were not fully traceable due to commingled accounts. A special master (an accountant) was appointed to review the accounts, and the trial court adopted his report after hearings, awarding the wife alimony and a share of the property while ordering certain litigation costs paid from community assets. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the decree in most respects, including the handling of costs and fees, but reversed on the valuation of the restaurant's goodwill because it failed to incorporate the full 1962 business receipts of $123,706.37, and remanded for a limited new trial on that issue while noting the trial court's discretion to adjust the overall property division and alimony accordingly.

family lawproperty

This case was a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff appealed a directed verdict for the defendant physician, seeking to overturn the court's prior adoption of the 'locality rule' for determining the applicable standard of care. The Nevada Supreme Court declined to overrule its precedent in Lockhart v. Maclean and affirmed the judgment, holding that the directed verdict was proper in the absence of any evidence that the defendant's treatment deviated from the standard of practice in the Las Vegas area. The court also addressed the trial court's exclusion of certain medical texts offered under NRS 51.040, finding that any error in excluding an article by the defendant himself was not prejudicial and that the record was insufficient to review the exclusion of other texts for relevance or abuse of discretion.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a dispute over conflicting claims to an unpatented lode mining claim in Nevada between senior locator Claybaugh and junior locator Gancarz, who had located over the same ground assuming the prior claim was invalid. The trial court dismissed Claybaugh's suit to quiet title and granted Gancarz's counterclaim after finding deficiencies in the location notice and certificate that failed to meet statutory requirements. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that substantial compliance with the location statutes suffices to protect the senior locator's rights against a junior who acted in bad faith. The court reasoned that the recorded documents provided adequate notice of the claim despite minor deficiencies, and equity precludes preferring the bad-faith junior locator.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether Mervin and Nathan Adelson remained liable under personal guaranties they had signed for payment of goods sold by Wilson & Co. to Adelson, Inc. After the Adelsons sold their stock in the company to Fox Markets, Inc., and Adelson, Inc. later entered bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter X, Wilson sued the Adelsons for the value of meat delivered to stores that had become part of the Fox chain. The trial court entered judgment for Wilson based on its findings and on a clause in the guaranties making Wilson's records conclusive as to amounts owed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence established the goods had been sold and delivered to Fox Markets rather than Adelson, Inc., so the guaranties did not apply, and that the conclusive-records clause was void as against public policy.

business & regulatory

The case involved railroads seeking declaratory relief regarding Nevada's Full Train Crew Law (NRS 705.390), which mandates specific crew sizes including a fireman on freight trains outside yard limits. Plaintiffs argued the statute, passed in the steam locomotive era, did not require firemen on modern diesel locomotives where a qualified head brakeman could perform necessary safety duties in the cab, or alternatively that such a requirement would violate due process under the state constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the law applied and was constitutional. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's fireman requirement did not extend to diesel operations given the availability of the head brakeman, following its prior interpretation in a similar case, and that re-enactments of the law did not alter that meaning.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Fuhrman, as assignee of creditors, suing Sterling Builders, Inc. and Hyrum K. Ford for unpaid debts totaling over $21,000 incurred by the Sterling Village Market. Sterling Builders denied any partnership with Ford, asserting it was only a creditor and landlord, and claimed estoppel based on the prior receivership proceedings. The trial court found that the parties were partners or joint venturers based on their written agreement, fictitious name certificate, liquor license, lease, and other evidence, and that Sterling Builders was judicially estopped from denying the partnership due to its contrary sworn allegations in the receivership action where it had sought a receiver. The court held Sterling Builders liable for the market's debts and rejected the argument that pro rata payments in receivership discharged the obligation. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the redemption of property acquired by Clark County through a tax deed in 1935, where title had vested absolutely in the county after the redemption period expired. Roosevelt Title Insurance Company, the former owner, sought to redeem the property in 1963 under a 1957 statute allowing reconveyance upon payment of taxes and interest before any public sale. The trial court granted summary judgment ordering the county treasurer to accept the redemption and issue a deed. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1957 statute was not retroactive and did not apply to property whose title had already vested in the county prior to its enactment, as statutes affecting vested rights are presumed to operate prospectively only.

propertytaxesprocedure