Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Charleston Hill National Mines, Inc. v. Clough

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1963No. 4548Published

1ConcurrenceThompson, J.

I agree only with the result. The defendant (appellant here) failed to make an adequate record to permit appellate review of the assigned error. The record shows that the defense asked a witness the following preliminary question: “Q. Mr. Link, at this get together or gathering on September 23rd, did Mrs. Clough show the other members of the board of directors any evidence of these advances or loans?” Counsel for plaintiff interposed an objection based upon the applicability of the parol evidence rule. The court sustained the objection. Clearly, the question was preliminary. A “yes” or “no”…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Evans v. CookNevada Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Alamo Airways, Inc. v. BenumNevada Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Beck Electric Construction Co. v. National Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
  4. Western National Insurance v. TrentNevada Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Burk v. WaltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935

11 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