Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel

8 Citing cases

  1. Pink v. Busch

    100 Nev. 684 (Nev. 1984)   Cited 94 times
    In Pink v. Busch, 691 P.2d 456, 459-60 (Nev. 1984), the court stated that "[p]romissory estoppel... can be used as a 'consideration substitute' to support the release of liability under a guaranty contract."

    Where there is no evidence in support of the lower court's findings, they are clearly erroneous and may be reversed. Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel Inc., 99 Nev. 464, 470, 664 P.2d 354, 358 (1983). Thus, the trial court's finding regarding consideration for Sam's release was clearly erroneous.

  2. Leonard v. Stoebling

    728 P.2d 1358 (Nev. 1987)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that a CC&R prohibiting any new construction from blocking the view of other residents in the subdivision provided sufficient guidance to an architectural committee

    This court has stated that findings of fact "will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence." Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel, Inc., 99 Nev. 464, 470, 664 P.2d 354, 357 (1983). In Burroughs, this court went on to cite NRCP 52(a) and stated that findings of fact "shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous."

  3. Sierra Diesel Injection Serv. v. Burroughs

    874 F.2d 653 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that a lease is a financing agreement where alleged lessee was responsible for all maintenance costs, in addition to taxes and indemnification for the lessor's loss

    The name given to the instrument is less important in determining its true nature than is the intent of the parties and the economic reality of the transaction. R. White J. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, § 22-3 (2d ed. 1980). In Burroughs v. Century Steel, 99 Nev. 464, 664 P.2d 354 (1983) the Nevada Supreme Court examined the question of what constitutes a true lease and what constitutes a financing agreement and listed several factors. Applying the factors noted in Century Steel, Sierra Diesel's lease was in fact a financing arrangement because Sierra Diesel was responsible for maintenance, for all taxes, and for loss due to damage to the computer.

  4. Fuller v. Fuller

    No. 64326 (Nev. Jun. 11, 2015)

    Appellant next contends that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded a Fidelity financial account to appellant as separate property but awarded to respondent a community interest in certain stock that appellant, in a post-divorce decree motion, asserted was held in the Fidelity account. Because neither party sought to admit into evidence the proposed exhibit that appellant now relies on, no evidence supported a finding that the stock was separate property, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the stock was community property. See Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel, Inc., 99 Nev. 464, 470, 664 P.2d 354, 358 (1983) (holding that a district court determination which was based upon an exhibit not admitted into evidence was clearly erroneous). Additionally, the district court properly determined that post-judgment relief was not warranted by the proposed exhibit, as the failure of appellant's trial counsel to present evidence on the matter at trial is not grounds for post-judgment relief. Achrem, 112 Nev. at 742, 917 P.2d at 450.

  5. Ford v. Showboat Operating Co.

    110 Nev. 752 (Nev. 1994)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that a party must be aggrieved by a lower court's judgment and seek to alter the rights of the parties to that judgment for this court to have appellate jurisdiction

    Moreover, this court has held that we "will affirm the order of the district court if it reached the correct result, albeit for different reasons." Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 575, 747 P.2d 230, 233 (1987); see, e.g., Brascia v. Johnson, 105 Nev. 592, 596, 781 P.2d 765, 768 (1989); Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel, 99 Nev. 464, 467, 664 P.2d 354, 356 (1983). The holding in Alamo that a party must file a notice of cross-appeal in order to raise issues not accepted by the district court in support of a favorable judgment is inconsistent with these cases.

  6. Rosenstein v. Steele

    103 Nev. 571 (Nev. 1987)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that "this court will affirm the order of the district court if it reached the correct result, albeit for different reasons"

    Although the court below apparently denied appellant's motion on the sole ground that appellant had not demonstrated excusable neglect, this court will affirm the order of the district court if it reached the correct result, albeit for different reasons. See Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel, 99 Nev. 464, 664 P.2d 354 (1983). In light of the above, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

  7. Lee v. Verex Assurance Inc.

    103 Nev. 515 (Nev. 1987)   Cited 5 times
    In Lee v. Verex Assurance Inc., 103 Nev. 515, 518, 746 P.2d 140 (1987), the Nevada Supreme Court held that under this statute, fair market value means " the price which a purchaser, willing but not obligated to pay, would pay an owner willing but not obligated to sell, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted, and might in reason be applied."

    Appellants have retained different counsel on appeal. District court findings that are based on substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. NRCP 52(a); Leonard v. Stroebling, 102 Nev. 543, 728 P.2d 1358, 1361-62 (1986); Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel, 99 Nev. 464, 470, 664 P.2d 354, 357 (1982). Because the district court decisions to sell the fifty-three units of Alpine Vista as a block and to value the complex at the appraised values are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the district court order.

  8. Eivazi v. Eivazi

    139 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Nev. App. 2023)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that it is not reversible error for a district court to enter a litigant-drafted decree without modification

    This was an abuse of discretion.See Burroughs Corp. v. Century Steel, Inc., 99 Nev. 464, 470, 664 P.2d 354, 358 (1983) (holding that a district court determination that was based upon an exhibit not admitted into evidence was clearly erroneous).