Legal Opinion

Kovacs v. Acosta

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1990No. 20114PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

John Kovacs, Fifi Kovacs and George Kannengisser (appellants) owned a parcel of land together with Rafael and Yolanda Acosta (Acostas). The appellants filed an action to partition the land but later sold their land without informing the Acostas or dismissing the partition action. The Acostas filed counterclaims against the appellants for abuse of process and attorney’s fees and costs which arose from the partition. The court awarded the Acostas attorney’s fees, expenses incurred in the partition action, and court costs. We reverse the district court’s holding.

FACTS

Appellants owned a…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bull v. McCuskeyNevada Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. WilliamsNevada Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Gaither by & Through Chalfin v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
  4. Rasmussen v. ThomasNevada Supreme Court · 1982

4Cited by15 opinions

  1. Posadas v. City of RenoNevada Supreme Court · 1993
  2. LaMantia v. RedisiNevada Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Dutt v. KrempNevada Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Dutt v. KrempNevada Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Georgiou Studio, Inc. v. Boulevard Invest, LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2009

10 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