Falline v. GNLV CORP.
Nevada Supreme Court
1DissentSpringer, J.
Each of the plurality opinions would reverse the judgment of the trial court and restore Falline’s tort actions. I cannot agree with either opinion; I think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
I would afiirm because I believe that Falline has not properly stated any tort claims in his pleading. This being so, I see no purpose in taking a position on the differences of opinion expressed in the two plurality opinions. These issues, in my opinion, will not be ripe for consideration unless and until the pleading is put in proper order.
As indicated, I dissent from the majority’s…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. PetersonNevada Supreme Court · 1975
- Mottola v. R. L. Kautz & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1988
- Rush v. Nevada Industrial CommissionNevada Supreme Court · 1978
- State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. BoothmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975