Davis v. Gomez

Nevada Supreme Court

Davis v. Gomez

555 P.2d 1228, 92 Nev. 629

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1976

DocketNo. 8513

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 555 P.2d 1228 (Davis v. Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 P.2d 1228, 92 Nev. 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-gomez-nev-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack