Fourchier v. McNeil Construction Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By the Court,
Badt, C. J.:
The district court sustained motions of the defendants to dismiss the amended complaint as to 39 nonresident plaintiffs for their failure to comply with defendants’ demands for security for costs. The propriety of such action is attacked in this appeal by the 39 nonresident plaintiffs. The fortieth and only additional plaintiff is a resident of Nevada and as to him the action was not dismissed.
Appellants contend (1) that by reason of the residence within the state of one plaintiff no cost bond could be required of the 39 nonresident plaintiffs; (2) that even…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Akely v. . KinnicuttNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- M. Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Carter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Hull v. ShannonNew York Supreme Court · 1931
- Dilworth v. Yellow Taxi Corp.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1926
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rivero v. RiveroNevada Supreme Court · 2009
- Ewing v. FaheyNevada Supreme Court · 1970
- In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823Nevada Supreme Court · 2012
- Churchill County v. State EngineerNevada Supreme Court · 2012
- Borders Electronic Co., Inc. v. QuirkNevada Supreme Court · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.