Legal Opinion

Hines v. Plante

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 1983No. 13214PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

This appeal is taken from an order appointing a receiver, and from an order denying a motion to terminate the receivership. For the reasons stated below, we believe that the district court committed reversible error in establishing and maintaining the receivership, and we therefore reverse and remand.

In May, 1977, appellant Hines and respondents (hereinafter Plante) entered into an agreement whereby Plante transferred certain mining rights under an existing lease arrangement, to the Plumbago Mining Corporation (hereinafter Plumbago). In return, Plante received forty-six percent of the…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Bowler v. LeonardNevada Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Hawkins v. AldridgeIndiana Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Mann v. FridenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1955
  5. State ex rel. Larry C. Iverson, Inc. v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1965

4Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hollis v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
  2. State, Employment Security Department v. WeberNevada Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Bedore v. FamilianNevada Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Anderson v. State Industrial Insurance SystemNevada Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Clean Vision Corporation v. PercyDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2022

3 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