Legal Opinion

Haertel Ex Rel. Borregard v. Sonshine Carpet Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1986No. 16299PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Appellant Jean Borregard instituted this action on her own behalf and that of her son, James Haertel (“James”). She alleged that James was employed by respondent Sonshine Carpet Company (“Sonshine”) as a laborer; that Sonshine had entered into a joint venture agreement with respondents Clark County School District (“the District”) and Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) to remove and replace carpeting at some of the District’s facilities; and that James, through a combination of instances of negligence of respondents, received serious permanent injuries. The trial court dismissed the action…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hansen-Neiderhauser, Inc. v. Nevada State Tax CommissionNevada Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Sterling Builders, Inc. v. FuhrmanNevada Supreme Court · 1964

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Northern Nevada Ass'n of Injured Workers v. Nevada State Industrial Insurance SystemNevada Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Radaker v. ScottNevada Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Haertel ex rel. Borregard ex rel. Borregard v. Sonshine Carpet Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Pathland Development Corp. v. William Peccole 1982 TrustNevada Supreme Court · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API