Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo

10 Citing cases

  1. Walker Bank Trust Co. v. Smith

    501 P.2d 639 (Nev. 1972)   Cited 13 times
    In Walker Bank Trust Co. v. Smith, 88 Nev. 502, 508, 501 P.2d 639 (1972), the court dismissed the argument that the statute creates a trust with the comment that "the mentioned statute... concerns the crime of embezzlement. It does not purport to create a civil liability", citing its earlier holding in Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339 (1961).

    The mentioned statute is part of Chapter 205, "crimes against property," and particularly concerns the crime of embezzlement. It does not purport to create a civil liability. Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, 77 Nev. 441, 445, 446, 366 P.2d 339 (1961). Since the statute does not create a civil liability it is immaterial whether suit is commenced against the general contractor as in Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, supra, or against the subcontractor as in the instant matter.

  2. In re Schultz

    46 B.R. 880 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1985)   Cited 82 times
    Acknowledging circumstantial evidence may show fraudulent conduct

    This construction accords with the two Nevada Supreme Court cases dealing with § 205.310. In Walker Bank Trust Co. v. Smith, 88 Nev. 502, 508, 501 P.2d 639 (1972), the court dismissed the argument that the statute creates a trust with the comment that "the mentioned statute . . . concerns the crime of embezzlement. It does not purport to create a civil liability", citing its earlier holding in Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339 (1961). The court directed suppliers of labor and materials to look to other statutes for civil remedies.

  3. Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wells Cargo, Inc.

    81 Nev. 163 (Nev. 1965)   Cited 7 times
    Upholding a dismissal with prejudice on the pleadings because "[t]here must be some end to the litigation, and appellant may not proceed to advance one theory after another, as a right to recover a judgment against defendant, labeling each new theory as an independent and new cause of action."

    The lower court said: "The dismissal in the prior case operated as an adjudication on the merits, NRCP Rule 41(b)." The former case was Zalk-Josephs Company, doing business as Triangle Steel Supply Co. v. Wells Cargo, Inc., and Travelers Indemnity Company. The judgment in the prior case was affirmed by this court in Zalk-Josephs Company v. Wells Cargo, Inc., 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339. In the opinion in that case this court analyzed the three causes of action relied upon by the plaintiff appellant.

  4. Bankasi v. Nature's Bakery, LLC

    Case No. 3:20-cv-00330-LRH-EJY (D. Nev. May. 7, 2021)

    As Turk Eximbank points out, Nevada does appear to require some "direct relationship or dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant," to justify an unjust enrichment claim. On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCary-Pollack, 2016 WL 5796858, No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-VCF (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2016) (citing Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wes Cargo, Inc., 366 P.2d 339, 342 (Nev. 1961)). Under Turk Eximbank's theory, because it never directly dealt with Intransia, and was only assigned the payment right for receivables where Intransia performed its shipping services, a relationship never existed between the two parties justifying an unjust enrichment claim.

  5. On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCart-Pollak

    Case No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. Aug. 4, 2017)

    Moreover, the plaintiff must show some direct /// relationship or dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wes Cargo, Inc., 366 P.2d 339, 342 (Nev. 1961). According to Plaintiff, Harrington took her "Lots of Love Buddies" idea and brochure, including all the work that went into her concept, which allowed Harrington and others to bring her concept to market.

  6. On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCart-Pollack

    Case No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-VCF (D. Nev. Sep. 30, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Granting Pollack leave to amend her unjust enrichment claim against Harrington

    Moreover, the plaintiff must show some direct relationship or dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wes Cargo, Inc., 366 P.2d 339, 342 (Nev. 1961). Under Pollak's theory, Harrington took her idea and brochure, including all the work that went into her concept, which allowed Third-Party Defendants to bring the CloudPets to market.

  7. Bowyer v. Davidson

    94 Nev. 718 (Nev. 1978)   Cited 15 times
    In Bowyer v. Davidson, 584 P.2d 686, 687 (Nev. 1978), the court affirmed the lower courts award of summary judgment to the defendants on an unjust enrichment claim, observing that there was no "genuine issue that respondents were unjustly enriched at appellant's expense."

    Nor is there a genuine issue that respondents were unjustly enriched at appellant's expense. Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339 (1961); see also, Annot., 62 A.L.R.3d § 2, 294. Respondents paid G.H.N. substantially all the amount due on the prime contract. Cf. Paschall's Inc. v. Dozier, 407 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1966). Moreover, appellant could have protected himself by the exercise of his lien rights against the property.

  8. Vegas Paint Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co.

    482 P.2d 813 (Nev. 1971)

    Boswell v. Insurance Company of North America, 85 Nev. 359, 455 P.2d 174 (1969), held that performing faulty work did not impose liability on the bondsman under NRS Chapter 624. In Zalk-Josephs Company v. Wells Cargo, Inc., 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339 (1961), NRS 205.310 was simply relied upon to show an agency relation between Wells Cargo, the contractor, and Zalk-Josephs, a supplier of material to a subcontractor, and this court held there that NRS 205.310, could not be used to show such an agency relation. We must interpret the pertinent sections of NRS Chapter 624 as they read when this cause of action arose between October 1, 1966 and May 1967. At that time NRS 624.300 read as follows: "The board shall have power either to suspend or revoke licenses already issued and to refuse renewals of licenses when the applicant or licensee:

  9. Garff v. J.R. Bradley Co.

    436 P.2d 428 (Nev. 1968)   Cited 6 times
    Resolving an issue that the district court did not reach

    While the statute uses the general term, "notice," it is intended to be in legal effect the presentation of a claim (United States v. York, supra) without which a cause of action under the statute cannot come into being. Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339 (1961). Cf. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. Beacon Construction Co. of Mass. Inc., 159 N.E.2d 530 (Mass. 1959).

  10. Redd & Hill v. L & A Contracting Co.

    246 Miss. 548 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that a sub-subcontractor could not recover under a theory of quantum meruit from the primary contractor, where the sub-subcontractor had entered into an express contract with the subcontractor to perform the work

    " In the case of Zalk-Josephs Company, d.b.a. Triange Steel Supply Company v. Wells Cargo, Inc. (Nev. 1961), 366 P.2d 339, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that a materialman who supplied a subcontractor could not maintain common count against prime contractor based on materials and services rendered subcontractor who had been paid therefor by prime contractor but who defaulted, where there had been no dealings between prime contractor and materialman and prime contractor had not been unjustly enriched. In the case of Mid-State Tile Company v. Chaudoir, (La. App. 1955), 77 So.2d 552, the Louisiana Court of Appeals decided a case involving facts similar to the facts in the instant case, and the Court held that where services were rendered under a subcontract in behalf of a subcontractor, the plaintiff could not recover from the contractor on the theory of quantum meruit.