Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Flamingo Realty, Inc. v. Midwest Development, Inc.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 1994No. 23544Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partYoung, J.

Although I concur that the district court used the wrong quantum meruit valuation method, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ assessment of damages on appeal. Over my several years as a jurist, I have tried to remain true to a fundamental principle of appellate review: courts of appeal should spend their working hours deciding issues of law and not issues of fact. Only on rare occasions and under the most egregious circumstances (“clearly erroneous,” “manifestly wrong” or “abuse of discretion”) should we disrupt the factual rulings of the district court. It is on even rarer occasions…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Weichert Co. Realtors v. RyanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  2. Romanek-Golub & Co. v. Anvan Hotel Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1988
  3. Close v. RedeliusNevada Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Nelson v. ReinhartNevada Supreme Court · 1923

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

Powered by the Exa API