Pace v. Linton

Nevada Supreme Court

Pace v. Linton

625 P.2d 84, 97 Nev. 103, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 455

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1981

Docket12115

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 625 P.2d 84 (Pace v. Linton) 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

Pace v. Linton, 625 P.2d 84, 97 Nev. 103, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 455 (Neb. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal in a breach .of contract action. The respondent Linton, a Nevada architect, sued to recover a $10,000.00 professional fee for services rendered to appellants in the construction of the Post Realty Building in Las Vegas. On appeal, the sole question is whether sufficient evidence was adduced to justify the district court’s determination that-respondent had performed his contractual obligations and was entitled, therefore, to the agreed-upon compensation.

Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. NRCP 52. *104 Our task when reviewing the appropriateness of findings and judgments rendered by district courts is to “. . . determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings and judgment of the district judge.” Utley v. Airoso, 86 Nev. 116, 118, 464 P.2d 778 (1970); Savini Constr. Co. v. A & K Earthmovers, 88 Nev. 5, 7, 492 P.2d 125 (1972); Brandon v. Travitsky, 86 Nev. 613, 615, 472 P.2d 353 (1970).

Here, although the evidence was conflicting, there was substantial proof to support the district court’s findings and judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment and its award of damages.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal in a breach .of contract action. The respondent Linton, a Nevada architect, sued to recover a $10,000.00 professional fee for services rendered to appellants in the construction of the Post Realty Building in Las Vegas. On appeal, the sole question is whether sufficient evidence was adduced to justify the district court’s determination that-respondent had performed his contractual obligations and was entitled, therefore, to the agreed-upon compensation.

Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. NRCP 52. *104 Our task when reviewing the appropriateness of findings and judgments rendered by district courts is to “. . . determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings and judgment of the district judge.” Utley v. Airoso, 86 Nev. 116, 118, 464 P.2d 778 (1970); Savini Constr. Co. v. A & K Earthmovers, 88 Nev. 5, 7, 492 P.2d 125 (1972); Brandon v. Travitsky, 86 Nev. 613, 615, 472 P.2d 353 (1970).

Here, although the evidence was conflicting, there was substantial proof to support the district court’s findings and judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment and its award of damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 P.2d 84, 97 Nev. 103, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-v-linton-nev-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack