Legal Opinion

Aikins v. Nevada Placer, Inc.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided September 7, 1932No. 2959PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] There must be something in a complaint to show the character of the claim made by the defendants, so that the court may determine from the face of the complaint whether the claim is a cloud on the title or whether it is merely a claim of no consequence. McLeod v. Lloyd, 71 P. 598.

In a suit to remove a cloud on title, it must be shown in the bill that such a cloud exists before relief can be given against it, and in such a case the bill must, in addition to…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Castro v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Ely v. New Mexico & Arizona RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. Harter v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Consolidated G. & S. M. Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Scorpion Silver Mining Co. v. MarsanoNevada Supreme Court · 1875

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Casey v. LupkesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
  2. Anderson v. BlixtNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Kendall v. SouthwardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Anderson v. LyonsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Hodges Transportation, Inc. v. StateDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1983

1 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