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

This case is an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging custody for extradition to Oregon on a parole violation from a 1942 burglary conviction. The court affirmed the denial of discharge and declined to rule on the state's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. It held that the appellant remained a fugitive from justice even though his departure from Oregon was involuntary due to transfer for another state's proceedings, that Oregon did not waive its rights by granting parole, and that earlier discharges in habeas proceedings in Nebraska and Kansas did not bar the extradition claim because they resulted from default rather than merits determinations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a tenant suing her landlord for negligence after she fell and was injured on broken stairs in a rented house; the landlord had agreed to repair the steps at the time of the lease but failed to do so despite repeated requests. The trial court granted summary judgment to the landlord, finding that the complaint showed the tenant either assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent. On appeal, the court reversed, ruling that neither defense conclusively appears as a matter of law from the pleadings, which establish only the tenant's knowledge of the defect but not that she appreciated the magnitude of the risk or that a reasonable person would not have used the stairs. Issues of contributory negligence and assumption of risk therefore remain factual questions for the court or jury, so summary judgment was improper.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case involved a bus company, a common carrier, appealing a judgment requiring it to pay the full value of a passenger's lost luggage after negligence caused the loss during an intrastate trip. The carrier had filed a rate schedule with the public service commission limiting its baggage liability to $25 absent a higher declared value and payment, and argued this limited its responsibility. The trial court permitted evidence of the luggage's actual higher value and awarded $300. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that prior decisions under similar statutes established that common carriers cannot limit liability for losses due to their own negligence through rate schedules or contracts. The court reasoned that the 1919 statutes did not change the law from earlier cases and that a unilateral rate-based limit could not stand if even a contractual one would be invalid as against public policy.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a negligence claim for personal injuries sustained by a spectator at a softball game when a piece of a broken bat, swung by two young boys on the field, flew through a hole in the protective wire screen and struck her in the grandstand. The defendants, owners of the field, appealed a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, arguing that the incident was not a foreseeable hazard for which they owed a duty of protection and that the plaintiff had assumed the risk. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the question of foreseeability—whether reasonable minds could differ on the likelihood of such skylarking by children in connection with the field's use—was one of fact for the trial court, which implicitly found the hazard reasonably anticipated under the informal circumstances of the game. The court rejected the argument that the duty was limited only to risks from game participants themselves and found no assumption of risk, as the trial court determined the plaintiff lacked actual knowledge of the screen's condition and was not required to inspect the facilities.

torts & liability

This case involved an appeal by the state from a trial court's order granting defendants a new trial after their conviction for grand larceny in the theft of a cash register from a Nevada service station. The trial court ordered the new trial based on the district attorney's display of a pair of chalk-stained shoes to the jury throughout the proceedings, even though the shoes were never marked for identification or admitted into evidence and no testimony connected them to the defendants or the crime. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that the trial judge was in the best position to assess whether the improper display prejudiced the defendants' right to a fair trial and that there was no clear abuse of discretion warranting reversal. The court also noted that the trial judge had alternatively based the ruling on his own prior error in denying a mistrial motion, a ground not requiring an affidavit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by a mother from a trial court order reducing the father's monthly child support obligation under a 1948 Nevada divorce decree, after the father showed his income had been cut in half. The mother argued that the reduction lacked evidence of serving the children's best interests and was barred by res judicata from a prior District of Columbia judgment on support arrears. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the modification, holding that support obligations remain adjustable based on changed circumstances without restriction to increases favoring the children, and that res judicata could not be raised for the first time on appeal since it was not asserted or considered below. The court also declined to address attorney fees on appeal as they required a separate contract-based determination in the trial court.

family lawprocedure

This case was a wrongful death action arising from an automobile accident in which the defendant driver lost control of his vehicle after swerving, resulting in the death of his guest passenger. The defendant appealed the judgment for the plaintiffs entered after a jury verdict, arguing primarily that a local ordinance imposing a 20 mph speed limit in the town of Wadsworth should not have been admitted as evidence of negligence because it was not enacted for the protection of guest passengers. The court decided that the ordinance was properly admitted in evidence as establishing a standard of reasonable care that applied to all persons affected by the hazard of speeding through the town, including guests, and that this standard remained relevant even under the circumstances of the accident. The court also upheld the award of costs for deposition expenses, finding they qualified as necessary disbursements because the depositions were used at trial. The judgment was affirmed.

torts & liability

This case involved an appeal from a trial court order modifying a divorce decree to transfer custody of two young children from their mother to their father. The original decree had awarded custody to the mother, but after about a year the father sought modification following his remarriage and improved finances, citing the mother's temporary agreement to let the children live with him while she attended school. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the modification order, holding that the father's changed circumstances alone did not justify altering custody and that the mother's voluntary temporary arrangement could not be used against her when her own fitness and situation remained unchanged. The court remanded with instructions to set aside the modification and restore custody to the mother.

family law

The case involved Edward Bleeker Elias, convicted of first-degree murder for shooting his wife Lucy Elias on or about September 23, 1955, and sentenced to death by the jury. On appeal from the judgment and denial of a new trial motion, Elias contended that the commitment order was fatally defective for not specifying the degree of murder or probable cause for a capital offense without bail, and that the evidence was insufficient to establish express malice aforethought. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order, ruling that the commitment satisfied statutory requirements by stating the nature of the offense, time, and place without needing to specify degree, that preliminary hearing testimony supported holding without bail, and that substantial evidence backed the verdict under established Nevada precedent. The court also denied modification of the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether Nevada truck drivers were eligible for unemployment compensation benefits after being laid off for approximately three weeks in 1955 amid an industry-wide labor dispute over wages and contract terms. The executive director of the State Employment Security Division denied benefits under NRS 612.395, which disqualifies claimants whose unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress at their place of employment; the board of review affirmed the denial, but the district court reversed it. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the denial, holding that the California strike by related union locals directly caused the Nevada layoffs or lockouts because the employers were engaged in joint negotiations, making the dispute one in which the claimants' local participated. The court reasoned that the statute requires no inquiry into fault or voluntariness and is designed to preserve state neutrality by withholding benefits whenever unemployment stems from a labor dispute at the relevant establishment.

labor & employment

This case was a will contest in which the decedent's son challenged the probate of his mother's will on grounds of her alleged mental incompetence and insanity. The trial court excluded testimony from disinterested neighbor witnesses regarding their conversations with the decedent and dismissed the case for failure to prove a sufficient claim. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the dead man's statutes (NRS 48.010 and 48.030) did not bar the testimony because the witnesses had no interest in the outcome and the proceeding was a dispute among potential heirs rather than a claim against the estate. The court reasoned that statements by the testator are relevant evidence of mental condition and that an offer of proof was unnecessary where the materiality of the excluded conversations was apparent on its face.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over ownership of an automobile between Universal CIT Credit Corporation, assignee of a Kentucky conditional sales contract with a recorded lien, and Wagner, a Nevada buyer who purchased the vehicle from an intermediate owner who presented a bill of sale marked 'paid.' The trial court awarded judgment to Wagner, concluding that CIT was estopped from enforcing its lien due to joint negligence with the dealer in allowing the misleading documents. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the properly recorded Kentucky lien provided constructive notice, that Wagner did not rely on the bill of sale for his full payment because he inquired about liens in the records, and that CIT had no knowledge or duty to prevent the dealer's unilateral actions so no equitable estoppel applied. Title remained with CIT subject only to Wagner's partial payment equity.

property

This case involved a dispute over a right-of-way where the appellants, owners of the Big Meadows Hotel property, sued the adjoining respondents to establish a prescriptive easement over an L-shaped area on the respondents' land connecting a mutual right-of-way to a public alley. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding no such easement, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on appeal. The sole issue was whether the appellants' long-term use of the area was adverse rather than permissive. The court held that the use was presumed permissive as a neighborly accommodation where the respondents maintained the area for their own purposes without interference, and the appellants failed to rebut this presumption with evidence of an actual adverse claim, despite incidents like signs, fences, and traffic stops.

property

This case involved a plaintiff injured when a cellar door fell inward onto him while he was delivering fuel oil through a sidewalk opening to a building basement; he sued the owners solely under a Reno city ordinance requiring guardrails and screens around such openings after abandoning a common-law negligence claim. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance was satisfied by a guardrail placed around the opening and raised doors, which would not have prevented the inward fall, and that the ordinance's purpose was to protect sidewalk pedestrians rather than users of the entrance. The court also found that the defendants' mid-trial directed-verdict motion and proposed jury instruction satisfied the requirements of Rule 50 for preserving the right to judgment n.o.v.

proceduretorts & liability