Davis v. Gomez

555 P.2d 1228, 92 Nev. 629
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided November 10, 1976·No. No. 8513·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding consideration for modification of a written contract. We disagree.

After reviewing the record, we find substantial evidence supporting that finding and, thus, the judgment is affirmed. J & J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction, Inc., 92 Nev. 590, 555 P.2d 488 (1976); Holland Livestock v. B & C Enterprises, 92 Nev. 473, 553 P.2d 950 (1976).

Other issues raised by appellant are without merit and we need not consider them.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davis v. Gomez, 555 P.2d 1228, 92 Nev. 629 (Neb. 1976).

555 P.2d 1228 (Davis v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central Bank, N.A. v. Baldwin
583 P.2d 1087 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1978)