Alves v. Bumguardner
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Penrose v. O'Hara (Nev. 1976)
- Levers v. Rio King Land & Investment Co. (Nev. 1977)
- Pangborn v. National Advertising Co. (Nev. 1977)
- Mountain Shadows of Incline v. Kopsho (Nev. 1976)
- J & J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction, Inc. (Nev. 1976)
- Holland Livestock Ranch v. B & C ENTERPRISES (Nev. 1976)
- Meadows v. Sheldon Pollack Corp. (Nev. 1976)
- Rice v. Harrison (Nev. 1976)
- Applewhite Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Vaccaro (Nev. 1976)
- Casino Car Wash, Inc. v. Koepenick (Nev. 1976)
- Crescent v. White (Nev. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
Appellants contend the district court erroneously determined that the parties intended certain small tools and equipment to be included in the sale of appellants’ ranch to respondents.
The court’s determination is based on substantial evidence and will not be set aside on appeal. County of Clark v. Lucas, 91 Nev. 263, 534 P.2d 499 (1975); Kulik v. Albers Incorporated, 91 Nev. 134, 532 P.2d 603 (1975); Fletcher v. Fletcher, 89 Nev. 540, 516 P.2d 103 (1973); Picking v. Day and Night Elec., Inc., 87 Nev. 5, 479 P.2d 461 (1971).
*800 Appellants argue that the Uniform Commercial Code is applicable to the transaction. In that this argument is first raised on appeal and supported by no authority, we will not entertain it. Solar, Inc. v. Electric Smith Constr., 88 Nev. 457, 499 P.2d 649 (1972); Howarth v. El Sobrante Mining Corp., 87 Nev. 492, 489 P.2d 89 (1971); Britz v. Consolidated Casinos Corp., 87 Nev. 441, 488 P.2d 911 (1971); Young Elec. Sign Co. v. Erwin Elec. Co., 86 Nev. 822, 477 P.2d 864 (1970).
Numerous other contentions of appellants being without merit, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.