Grosner v. Grosner

Nevada Supreme Court

Grosner v. Grosner

557 P.2d 273, 92 Nev. 743

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1976

DocketNo. 8607

StatusPublished

This text of 557 P.2d 273 (Grosner v. Grosner) 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

Grosner v. Grosner, 557 P.2d 273, 92 Nev. 743 (Neb. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant contends the district court erred in finding that she was not vested with an equitable interest as beneficiary of two insurance policies. We disagree.

The district court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence and, further, we fail to perceive any abuse of the district court’s discretion. Holland Livestock v. B & C Enterprises, 92 Nev. 473, 553 P.2d 950 (1976); cf. Evans v. Evans, 92 Nev. 608, 555.P.2d 839 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm the district court order.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant contends the district court erred in finding that she was not vested with an equitable interest as beneficiary of two insurance policies. We disagree.

The district court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence and, further, we fail to perceive any abuse of the district court’s discretion. Holland Livestock v. B & C Enterprises, 92 Nev. 473, 553 P.2d 950 (1976); cf. Evans v. Evans, 92 Nev. 608, 555.P.2d 839 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm the district court order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 P.2d 273, 92 Nev. 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grosner-v-grosner-nev-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack