From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

J J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction

Supreme Court of Nevada
Oct 20, 1976
92 Nev. 590 (Nev. 1976)

Summary

explaining that the district court's decision will not be disturbed if supported by conflicting, but substantial evidence

Summary of this case from Colonial Real Estate P'ship, Ltd. v. Morgan (In re Carver)

Opinion

No. 8354

October 20, 1976

Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, Carson City; Frank B. Gregory, J.

John J. McCune and Paul J. Williams, Reno, for Appellant.

Robert A. Grayson, Carson City, for Respondent.


OPINION


After hearing argument of counsel, reviewing the record and considering the briefs on file herein, we conclude there is substantial, though conflicting, evidence to support the trial court's findings.

Where a trial court, sitting without a jury, makes a determination upon conflicting evidence, that determination will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, it is supported by substantial evidence. Alves v. Bumguardner, 91 Nev. 799, 544 P.2d 436 (1975); County of Clark v. Lucas, 91 Nev. 263, 534 P.2d 499 (1975); Fletcher v. Fletcher, 89 Nev. 540, 516 P.2d 103 (1973).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

J J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction

Supreme Court of Nevada
Oct 20, 1976
92 Nev. 590 (Nev. 1976)

explaining that the district court's decision will not be disturbed if supported by conflicting, but substantial evidence

Summary of this case from Colonial Real Estate P'ship, Ltd. v. Morgan (In re Carver)
Case details for

J J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction

Case Details

Full title:J J BUILDING CONTRACTORS, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. SAVAGE…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Oct 20, 1976

Citations

92 Nev. 590 (Nev. 1976)
555 P.2d 488

Citing Cases

Morrison v. Rayen Investments, Inc.

J J Bldg. Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Constr., Inc., 92 Nev. 590, 555 P.2d 488 (1976). Dickstein v.…

L.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Kenny

The district court, in a trial without jury, found that appellants had assumed a duty to beach respondents'…