Charles Merton Merrill

This case involved a lawsuit by Oden against European Motors, Ltd., a corporation in which he held stock, to recover unpaid salary allegedly owed under a pre-incorporation employment agreement for his services as general manager. The jury awarded Oden $6,400, and the corporation appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of any contract or corporate ratification. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the corporation's acceptance of Oden's services with knowledge of the salary terms constituted implied ratification of the agreement, even without proof of express ratification at the organizational meeting. Although Oden's testimony was impeached on some points, the evidence supported the jury's finding of an express contract, and the verdict was not disturbed despite appearing to reflect a compromise on the amount.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved an executrix seeking a writ of prohibition to halt a lawsuit brought by purchasers against a decedent's estate for rescission of a land sale contract due to alleged fraud, along with restitution of payments and damages. The purchasers had not filed a timely creditor's claim under NRS 147.040, which bars untimely claims against an estate. The court denied the writ, holding that a claim seeking cancellation of a contract improperly asserted as an estate asset does not require filing under the non-claim statute because it does not diminish estate property. For the restitution aspect, equity provides a lien on the real estate, and NRS 147.150 allows actions to enforce such liens without prior claim filing if recourse against other estate assets is waived. The court thus concluded it had jurisdiction to proceed with the action for contract cancellation and related relief.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a slander lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, an officer of the United Freeway Association, against statements made by the defendant at a public hearing on interstate highway routing in Sparks, Nevada. The defendant accused the association or its sympathizers of forgery, petition theft, and fraud involving petitions, but made no reference to any specific individual. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the statements did not refer to the plaintiff, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that defamation of a large group (here, over 12,500 members plus sympathizers) is not actionable by an individual member unless the statement singles out that person, which the language here expressly did not do.

torts & liability

This case concerned a condemnation action by the Nevada Department of Highways to take land in Washoe County, where the State had already taken possession under an immediate occupancy order and appealed what it viewed as an excessive compensation award. The issue was whether the State must deposit the full award amount in court under NRS 37.170 as a condition of remaining in possession during the appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the statute requires such a deposit even when the State is the condemnor already in possession, reconciling it with the immediate occupancy provisions of NRS 37.100. The court reasoned that the deposit serves as a statutory condition for continued possession and appeal rights without rendering the appeal moot, since any excess could be recovered later, thereby balancing the condemnee's right to prompt payment against the State's ability to challenge the award.

propertyprocedure

This case involves the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners seeking reformation of deeds after selling the northern portion of their Las Vegas lot, which had been misdescribed due to errors in the recorded plat depth and building setback measurements. The union intended to convey only the unimproved northern section while retaining a 25-foot alleyway behind its building, but the deeds used an incorrect starting point that eliminated the alley. The trial court ruled against the union, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, finding a mutual mistake of fact supported by the record and that subsequent buyers Steel, Gray, and Cooper had notice of the union's equitable claim and thus were not bona fide purchasers. The court ordered reformation of the deeds to specify the true point of beginning 21.9 feet north of the erroneous description.

property

This case was an action for slander in which the defendant appealed a $10,000 judgment entered by the trial court sitting without a jury. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that striking the defendant's answer and entering default under Rule 37(d) NRCP was proper because her failure to appear for a scheduled deposition, despite notice and stipulations, was willful, and her attorney offered no explanation at the motion hearing. On claims that the damages were excessive or improperly awarded for future losses and mental suffering, the court found no basis for reversal because the appellate record lacked a trial transcript to review the evidence supporting the findings, the award did not duplicate elements of damages, and the amount was not shown to result from passion or prejudice.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether an employee injured at work by a patron's gunshot could pursue a common law negligence suit against her employers after applying for and accepting a permanent total disability award from the Nevada Industrial Commission totaling $199.50 monthly for life. Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to halt the proceedings, arguing the award was res judicata and ousted court jurisdiction. The court denied the writ, determining that Nevada's lack of direct judicial review of commission actions meant the award did not automatically bar the suit on res judicata grounds and the trial court retained jurisdiction. It clarified, however, that the plaintiff's acceptance of the award created an accord and satisfaction that destroyed any common law right of action in favor of the statutory remedy, distinguishing prior proceedings where no final award had been accepted.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned the Nevada Tax Commission's revocation of respondents' gambling licenses after hearings found they had operated cheating games at their casino. The district court, on review, modified the revocation order by substituting temporary suspensions for certain games and reversing it as to slot machines. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed that judgment on appeal, holding that courts lack authority to modify the commission's penalty determination because that would constitute administrative rather than judicial action, and statutes vest the commission with full power to revoke licenses for reasonable cause. The court further held that the commission's finding of cheating was supported by substantial evidence from eyewitness testimony, that the commission could impose a duty on licensees to prevent cheating, and that any notice deficiencies did not prejudice the respondents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the extent of a surety's liability on a bond for completion of a construction contract after the builder defaulted. The trial court reduced the judgment against the surety by the amount of certain escrow payments made prematurely by the owner, treating the early payment as a material variance that partially exonerated the surety. On appeal, the court ruled that the premature payments caused no prejudice to the surety since the funds were owed under the contract and the surety would have been obligated to pay the claims upon default anyway, so the breach did not release the surety. The court also rejected the surety's separate argument that early delivery of a promissory note constituted a prejudicial variance, finding the contract ambiguous and the surety responsible for checking the facts. The judgment was modified to increase the award to the owner from $4,222.13 to $10,241.78.

business & regulatory

In Fuchs v. Mapes, a plaintiff sued the owners of leased business premises for injuries sustained when he fell through an unfloored attic section while repairing a leaking roof at the tenant's request during a storm. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling the plaintiff was a licensee rather than an invitee and thus no duty of care was owed by the owners. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that invitee status requires circumstances creating an implied representation that the premises have been made safe for the visitor, which was absent because the tenant's request was unauthorized under the lease (no prior notice to owners) and the plaintiff acted without the owners' knowledge or consent. The court analogized the situation to emergency entrants like firefighters or uninvited visitors to restricted areas, where no such expectation of safety preparations arises even if mutual benefit exists.

propertytorts & liability

The case concerned a negligence action in which the plaintiff, a friend assisting the injured defendant with housework at the defendant's request, fell down basement stairs due to an allegedly unsafe platform and sought damages. The trial court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was a licensee to whom the defendant owed no duty to repair existing hazards, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the plaintiff was an invitee rather than a licensee. The core reasoning was that a person gratuitously performing services benefiting the premises owner is entitled to the same status and duty of care as a paid servant, without requiring a business relationship.

torts & liability

This case involved a plaintiff who fell into an unguarded trench dug across a public alley in Las Vegas at night for sewer connections to a building under construction on adjacent property owned by defendant Simpson. The plaintiff sued the owner, the general contractor, and the trenching subcontractor; the trial court dismissed claims against the owner and subcontractor while entering judgment against the general contractor. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the owner but affirmed the dismissal of the trenching company. The court held that under NRS 455.010 and common law, the owner owed a non-delegable duty to safeguard excavations made for his benefit on public property and could not shift that duty to an independent contractor. As to the subcontractor, liability ended once its work was completed, control was surrendered to the general contractor, and it no longer had authority over the site, so the statute did not impose ongoing responsibility.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition to halt a personal injury lawsuit brought by a nurse against her employer, Daniel W. Sullivan's estate, after she was injured on the job. The petitioner argued that Chapter 616 of the Nevada Revised Statutes made industrial insurance the employee's exclusive remedy, but the court rejected this claim. The court held that although the workers' compensation law is compulsory for employers of two or more employees, an employer must affirmatively provide and secure coverage by filing payroll reports and paying premiums; failure to do so for the nurses operated as a rejection of the act and permitted an action at law under NRS 616.375. The court further reasoned that the employer's voluntary election to cover domestic servants did not extend coverage to the nurses, who were separately defined under the statute, so no insurance applied to the injured employee. The writ was denied, allowing the trial court to proceed with the lawsuit.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a buyer who purchased what she believed was a new car from a used-car dealer but later discovered the frame was damaged and that the dealer had internally marked it as 'near new.' The buyer sought rescission of the contract on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment granting rescission and restitution of payments made. It reasoned that the dealer's knowing false representation that the car was new constituted actual fraud, which provided grounds for rescission independent of any warranty claims; the parol evidence rule did not bar evidence of the fraud; and the buyer's continued payments did not waive her rights because she lacked knowledge of the dealer's intent to deceive at the time.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a libel lawsuit brought by attorney Franklin against the Las Vegas Sun newspaper and its publisher and writer over a published article headline stating 'BABIES FOR SALE. FRANKLIN BLACK MARKET TRADE OF CHILD TOLD' and a tagline stating 'TOMORROW — BLACKMAIL BY FRANKLIN.' The trial court ruled the statements libelous per se, instructed the jury accordingly, and entered a $190,000 judgment after a jury verdict. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the headline and tagline were libelous per se because they tended to lower the plaintiff in the community's estimation and could be read independently of the article body by the public. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, however, because the trial judge improperly excluded evidence offered to show the defendants' good-faith beliefs in mitigation of damages and gave an erroneous instruction that failure to prove the truth of the statements could be considered evidence of malice.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involved a claim of conversion arising from a third-party claim to property that had been attached in a prior lawsuit. The plaintiff attached property belonging to certain corporations, after which the defendant asserted ownership and took possession under a statute allowing claimants to hold the property pending title determination. After a court hearing determined that the defendant was not the owner, the plaintiff sued for conversion based on the defendant's assertion of the claim and acceptance of possession. The court decided that these actions did not constitute conversion, as they were lawful steps in the judicial process to resolve a title dispute without malice or exercise of ownership rights adverse to the true owners, and affirmed judgment for the defendant.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

The case involved the State Bar of Nevada seeking an injunction against Pioneer Title Insurance & Trust Co. for preparing legal documents such as deeds, notes, and trust deeds while acting as escrow agents in real estate transactions, which the Bar claimed constituted unauthorized practice of law. The trial court granted the injunction, and on appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed it with modifications, removing references to purchase and sale agreements, escrow agreements, and escrow instructions from the prohibited activities. The court reasoned that preparing these instruments requires legal knowledge and is reserved for licensed attorneys to protect the public, and the title company's activities did not qualify for exceptions allowing incidental legal services in lay businesses due to lack of practical necessity.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over overlapping mining claims on property in Nevada, where the parties raced to locate and post claims after an Atomic Energy Commission announcement of a radioactive anomaly. The trial court, sitting without a jury, quieted title in favor of the respondents based on findings that they were first to post their claims and make a discovery of mineral in place. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court's credibility determinations regarding the timing of postings and that respondents had made a sufficient discovery through visible vein outcroppings, scintillator readings, and subsequent development confirming mineral-bearing material. The court applied longstanding principles that discovery must precede or validate a location and that only a slight showing is needed for a prior locator in such conflicts.

property

This case is an appeal from a judgment awarding $2,500 in attorney fees to the respondents, who had represented the appellant under a contingent fee agreement before withdrawing by court order due to the appellant's breach. The lower court fixed compensation in quantum meruit for services rendered and entered a personal judgment against the appellant rather than limiting recovery to an attorney's lien. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a court has authority to enter such a personal judgment because an attorney's right to compensation arises from contract (express or implied), with the lien serving only as security, and that jurisdiction to establish a lien includes the power to make a res judicata award enforceable directly by judgment. The court also rejected the argument that the fee amount was excessive, noting that the agreed fee is relevant but not controlling in a quantum meruit determination. The judgment was affirmed.

procedure

The case involved Clark County assemblymen petitioning to expunge the 'Conclusions' section of an Ormsby County grand jury report that investigated state land sales and censured the appellants for improper conduct in related transactions, including legislative actions and personal purchases of public land. The district court denied the petition, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, ordering expungement of the censure portions while allowing factual findings to remain. The court held that grand juries exceed their authority under NRS 172.300 by rendering moral judgments or administering reprimands based on secret proceedings, as the weight of authority requires confining reports to facts and recommendations when no indictment is issued. This prevents imposing punishment without affording the accused an opportunity for formal defense in an open forum.

criminal lawprocedure