The case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of a ranch and its personal property between buyer L. Masini and sellers Angelo and Louise Quilici. The sellers had not disclosed that Louise Quilici held part of the real property as trustee for her incompetent sister, leading to issues with transferring clear title after the parties signed a written agreement. The trial court ruled for the sellers based on impossibility of performance, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the sellers failed to make reasonable good faith efforts to perform their obligations under the contract. The court remanded for a new trial limited to determining damages, with provisions for potential rescission of the agreement upon payment.
The case involved a dispute over a mechanic's lien filed by defendants against plaintiff's real property for unpaid plumbing work. After negotiations, plaintiff tendered a reduced payment of $1,900 (later adjusted), which defendants accepted with an agreement to release the lien, but no release was recorded. Plaintiff sued under Nevada Compiled Laws Section 3750, seeking statutory penalties of $20 per day for the failure to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction. The district court found the lien valid, determined that the statutory obligation to release arose upon payment in October 1947, and awarded penalties for 67 days of noncompliance. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the judgment and the denial of a new trial, holding that the evidence established the lien and ownership, that appellants were estopped from denying the need for release after accepting payment, and that the penalty amount of $1,340 was properly calculated.
The case involved a licensed real estate broker suing the owner of a beauty salon for a $1,200 commission after procuring a buyer under an oral exclusive listing agreement to sell the property for a net of $20,000 to the seller. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff on a quantum meruit basis, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the broker had performed the services by advertising the property and securing a purchaser who agreed to the terms, and that Nevada precedent permitted recovery despite the lack of a written contract or formal acceptance by the seller. The court reasoned that the seller's statements and conduct during negotiations, including offers to split the commission, demonstrated recognition of the obligation, and that the buyer ultimately completed the purchase through the broker's efforts.
The case concerned a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Milton A. Bowler and Milton D. Bowler against Ralph J. Vannoy, the Sheriff of Churchill County, Nevada. The sheriff had seized 41 dairy cattle and one bull from the petitioners' ranch pursuant to an execution on a judgment in another case, despite the petitioners filing a verified third-party claim of ownership and demanding return of the animals. The sheriff did not release the property after no undertaking was filed within the statutory period and no hearing on title was sought within ten days. The Nevada Supreme Court granted a permanent writ of mandamus, ordering the sheriff to return the cattle and any offspring to the petitioners at their ranch, on the grounds that the sheriff had failed to comply with statutory requirements governing third-party claims to levied property.
The case involved defendant Nathan L. Merritt, Jr., who was convicted of grand larceny after a jury trial in Nevada district court for allegedly altering a brand on a cow belonging to another person. Merritt appealed the conviction and denial of a new trial, raising errors including the trial court's order directing the jury to view the cow with the altered brand at a corral and slaughterhouse without Merritt or his counsel present. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. It held that the jury view amounted to receiving evidence in a felony case, which required the defendant's personal presence under state statute and implicated constitutional rights to confrontation, cross-examination, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This case involved a petition for rehearing in a labor dispute between the Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 226, and the Eighth Judicial District Court concerning whether peaceful picketing to unionize a hotel and restaurant could be enjoined. The court denied the rehearing and upheld its prior decision that such picketing is lawful. The core reasoning relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedents establishing peaceful picketing as protected under free speech guarantees, Nevada case law such as City of Reno v. Second Judicial District Court, and the conclusion that unionization efforts qualify as a legitimate labor objective under applicable statutes, distinct from prohibited "yellow dog" contracts. No new contrary Nevada statutes or constitutional provisions were found to justify a change in view.