Legal Opinion
Barry v. Lindner
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided December 31, 2003No. 38177PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CORRECTED OPINION
2Per curiam
As the primary issues of this appeal, we consider whether telephonic testimony is permitted at trial and whether the district court correctly imputed income to Jeffrey Barry. We hold that telephonic testimony is only permissible under special circumstances and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imputed income to Barry.
FACTS
On May 16, 1993, Barry and Robyn Lindner were married. The following year, they had a son.
In 1977, Barry created his own company, Savings and Development Corporation, which developed insurance programs for credit cards.…
3Cases cited22 opinions
- Lee v. GNLV CORP.Nevada Supreme Court · 2000
- Elson v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1983
- Rosenstein v. SteeleNevada Supreme Court · 1987
- Executive Management, Ltd. v. Ticor Title InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 2002
- Hotel Riviera, Inc. v. TorresNevada Supreme Court · 1981
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by24 opinions
- Thomas v. City of North Las VegasNevada Supreme Court · 2006
- International Game Technology, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. SantosSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
- Miller v. WilfongNevada Supreme Court · 2005
- In Re the Estate of BroderickSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.