Palace Jewelry & Loan, Inc. v. Zloof
This text of Palace Jewelry & Loan, Inc. v. Zloof (Palace Jewelry & Loan, Inc. v. Zloof) 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.
Opinion
argument solely with references to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as codified in NRS Chapter 104, and NRS Chapter 646. "A single governing statute may be all the support needed to establish a point." Hernandez v. State, 117 Nev. 463, 466, 24 P.3d 767, 769 (2001). But in this case the applicability of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code is not readily apparent and Palace Jewelry provides neither relevant legal authority nor cogent argument as to why the text of these statutes supports their application to this dispute. More to the point, our independent research shows that "pawnbroking is an activity governed by Article 9 of the UCC." In re Schwalb, 347 B.R. 726, 739-40 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2006) (emphasis added); see also 8A Lary Lawrence, Lawrence's Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code § 9-102:151 (3d ed. 2005) ("Article 9 applies to a pledge of personal property."). And Article 9 differs meaningfully from Article 2 and does not, on its face, advance Palace Jewelry's cause in any obvious way. As the appellant, Palace Jewelry bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Schwartz v. Estate of Greenspun, 110 Nev. 1042, 1051, 881 P.2d 638, 644 (1994) ("We will not reverse an order or judgment unless error is affirmatively shown."); Lawrence v. Burnham, 4 Nev. 361, 363 (1868) ("The burden of showing error is upon the party alleging it."). This Palace Jewelry has failed to do. Because Palace Jewelry has failed to cite any relevant authority to establish reversible
...continued when the redemption time for each of the pawns ... expired," so this issue does not merit our prolonged consideration. NRAP 28(a)(9); Randall v. Salvation Army, 100 Nev. 466, 470-71, 686 P.2d 241, 244 (1984).
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A meo error, the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Zloof is affirmed. It is so ORDERED.
J.
J. Gibbons
hoe. Pickering J.
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Jill I. Greiner, Settlement Judge Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter Justice Law Center Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A en
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Palace Jewelry & Loan, Inc. v. Zloof, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palace-jewelry-loan-inc-v-zloof-nev-2015.