Legal Opinion

Matusik v. Large

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1969No. 5619PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Mowbray, J.:

The principal issue presented for our consideration on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to set aside a sale of a truck-mounted well-drilling rig purchased by the respondents, A. O. Large and Billie Pearl Large, from C. C. Davidson, now deceased. The appellant, Andrew L. Matusik, claims that the sale was a conveyance of Davidson’s assets made to defraud his creditors.

1. The Matusik-Davidson Litigation.

In 1961, Matusik sued Davidson in California and received a judgment in the sum of $28,038.76. The judgment was only partially satisfied;…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Friedel v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
  2. Allison v. MildredSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  3. Tallman v. First National BankNevada Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Neubauer v. CloutierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  5. Citizens Bank v. McElvainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Territorial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. BairdCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
  2. Sportsco Enterprises v. MorrisNevada Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Jolley v. ClayIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Weaks v. MounterNevada Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Eliot Discount Corp. v. DameMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985

4 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