Williams v. Zellhoefer

Nevada Supreme Court

Williams v. Zellhoefer

517 P.2d 789, 89 Nev. 579, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 594

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1973

Docket6931

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 517 P.2d 789 (Williams v. Zellhoefer) 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

Williams v. Zellhoefer, 517 P.2d 789, 89 Nev. 579, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 594 (Neb. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

In appellant’s Opening Brief, his counsel specifies five errors. Counsel’s arguments concerning the first four assume facts not in the record on appeal, which consists of the pleadings and a statement of the evidence, submitted by respondents, and settled and approved by the trial court pursuant to NRCP 75 (n). The trial court expressly rejected and disapproved a different statement of the evidence which appellant’s counsel submitted.

On áppeal, appellant’s counsel has made no attempt to confine or relate his argument to such record as is available, which to us seems to justify deciding the merits of the action in respondents’ favor. As to the fifth assignment of error, counsel has proffered no argument whatever.

“If appellant presents no argument or authorities in support of an alleged error in the court below, this court will not consider the assignment, unless the error is so unmistakable that it reveals itself by a casual inspection of the record.” Allison v. Hagan, 12 Nev. 38, 42 (1877); Gardner v. Gardner, 23 Nev. 207, 45 P. 139 (1896); Candler v. Ditch Co., 28 Nev. 151, 80 P. 751 (1905); Riverside Casino v. J. W. Brewer Co., 80 Nev. 153, 390 P.2d 232 (1964); Smithart v. State, 86 Nev. 925, 478 P.2d 576 (1970).

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

In appellant’s Opening Brief, his counsel specifies five errors. Counsel’s arguments concerning the first four assume facts not in the record on appeal, which consists of the pleadings and a statement of the evidence, submitted by respondents, and settled and approved by the trial court pursuant to NRCP 75 (n). The trial court expressly rejected and disapproved a different statement of the evidence which appellant’s counsel submitted.

On áppeal, appellant’s counsel has made no attempt to confine or relate his argument to such record as is available, which to us seems to justify deciding the merits of the action in respondents’ favor. As to the fifth assignment of error, counsel has proffered no argument whatever.

“If appellant presents no argument or authorities in support of an alleged error in the court below, this court will not consider the assignment, unless the error is so unmistakable that it reveals itself by a casual inspection of the record.” Allison v. Hagan, 12 Nev. 38, 42 (1877); Gardner v. Gardner, 23 Nev. 207, 45 P. 139 (1896); Candler v. Ditch Co., 28 Nev. 151, 80 P. 751 (1905); Riverside Casino v. J. W. Brewer Co., 80 Nev. 153, 390 P.2d 232 (1964); Smithart v. State, 86 Nev. 925, 478 P.2d 576 (1970).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 P.2d 789, 89 Nev. 579, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-zellhoefer-nev-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack