had an interest in appellants sufficient to request the appointment of a receiver. The district court also found that a sufficient risk of loss, waste, or mismanagement existed to appoint a receiver. Having considered the briefs and appendices in this appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's factual findings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it appointed a receiver. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. It is so ORDERED.

Doug

, J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Glenn C. Schepps Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A