Edgar Eather

This case involved a negligence claim by Beulah Wilson against the operators of a beauty parlor for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on a waxed floor while wearing wool socks provided by the defendants. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence at trial, the court dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prove a sufficient case. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, reasoning that the evidence could support a finding that waxing the floor was negligent given its use by customers in stocking feet, and that contributory negligence was also a jury question.

torts & liability

Parsons, a deputy sheriff, was charged with murder after shooting and killing a man during an attempt to apprehend individuals reported to be fighting; he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to one to five years. On appeal, he challenged the conviction based on multiple instances of jury separation during trial and deliberations, the lack of an oath for one jury custodian, and the trial court's decision to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the state had met its burden to show the jury separations caused no prejudice through affidavits, testimony, and evidence that no improper communications occurred. The court further reasoned that the manslaughter instruction was proper because the jury could reasonably conclude from conflicting testimony that Parsons used excessive or unjustified force in apprehending the victim without warning or legal cause, supporting a finding of an unlawful act.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over unpaid balance for carpets sold by the plaintiff to the defendants, operators of the Montmartre Motel, with the defendants claiming they were released from liability after the adjoining Moulin Rouge hotel assumed responsibility for the debt. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $6,646.15, and the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed. The court denied the defendants' motion to remand for newly discovered evidence because Nevada Rule 60(b) does not permit relief from judgment on that basis. The ruling was based on testimony establishing that any release was conditional on a check from the Moulin Rouge clearing the bank, which it did not, and that parol evidence was admissible to show conditions precedent affecting the release's delivery and effectiveness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal by a husband from portions of a 1957 Nevada divorce decree that ordered him to pay his wife a $20,000 lump sum in installments, convey his five-eighths interest in certain real property, and pay $2,500 in counsel fees. There was no community property, and both spouses held separate property. The court reversed those decree provisions, holding that NRS 125.150 authorizes equitable division only of community property and allows the husband's separate property to be set aside solely for the wife's support, but the trial court had instead framed its orders as a property-rights settlement without any adjudication of support needs or a proper motion and hearing for suit money under NRS 125.040.

family lawproperty

This case involved motel operators in Clark County appealing a contempt order and fines for violating a temporary restraining order that enforced a local ordinance regulating advertising signs displaying room rates. The ordinance required signs visible from public roads to include details such as the number of rooms, rates for single or multiple occupancy, and effective dates, and it prohibited misleading representations; it applied to motels but not hotels. The court affirmed the contempt finding, holding that the ordinance did not violate equal protection because the classification was reasonable given local experience with misleading motel advertising diverting customers. It further ruled that equity could properly enjoin violations that invaded competitors' property rights through customer diversion, that the evidence of such diversion was admissible, and that the operators had not complied with the order by altering their signs.

business & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Goldblatt's petition for habeas corpus after a justice of the peace held him to answer on a charge of involuntary manslaughter arising from a fatal car collision. Goldblatt's vehicle crossed the center line into the oncoming lane on a straight highway at dawn, striking another car and killing a passenger; the complaint alleged this resulted from reckless or imprudent driving in violation of Nevada traffic statutes. The district court denied the petition and remanded Goldblatt to custody, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the evidence of the statutory violation plus the resulting death established probable cause that a public offense had been committed and that Goldblatt was guilty, without requiring the state at the preliminary stage to disprove every possible non-negligent explanation or for the magistrate to resolve fine distinctions among degrees of negligence.

criminal lawprocedure