Legal Opinion

Tucker v. Action Equipment & Scaffold Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1997No. 27759PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Appellants Joseph Tucker and Kevin Clark (collectively referred to as “Tucker and Clark”) were employed by respondent Maleo, Inc. (“Maleo”), a dry wall company, which was hired by a general contractor. Tucker and Clark were injured when the scaffolding they were working on collapsed. The company providing the scaffolding, respondent Action Equipment and Scaffold Co., Inc. (“Action”), was a licensed contractor pursuant to NRS chapter 624.

After Tucker and Clark collected industrial insurance benefits through Maleo, they sued Action. Action filed a motion to dismiss, claiming it was…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

3Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. v. McReynoldsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1976
  2. Sims v. General Telephone & ElectronicsNevada Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Bird v. Casa Royale WestNevada Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Simon Service Incorporated v. MitchellNevada Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Caughlin Homeowners Ass'n v. Caughlin ClubNevada Supreme Court · 1993

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by28 opinions

  1. Wood v. Safeway, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Ges, Inc. v. CorbittNevada Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Jordan v. State Ex Rel. Department of Motor Vehicles & Public SafetyNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2006

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API