Legal Opinion

Hartz v. Mitchell

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1991No. 21333PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Appellants were tragically victimized by an intoxicated driver who inflicted death and injury on their family. Their quest for relief in the form of damages has been substantially frustrated as neither the tortfeasor nor the liability coverage applicable to the vehicle he was driving provided adequate sources of compensation to cover appellants’ losses. Appellants therefore turned to the rental car agency from which they obtained the vehicle they were using at the time of the collision, and its insurer for additional sources of recovery.

Basically, appellants contend that respondents…

3Cases cited10 opinions

  1. City Council of Reno v. Reno Newspapers, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Cirac v. Lander CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Moon v. Guarantee Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
  4. Quittem v. National Car Rental SystemsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. MacKenzie v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by10 opinions

  1. Barber v. RitterSupreme Court of Colorado · 2008
  2. Siggelkow v. Phoenix InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Salas v. Allstate Rent-A-Car, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Hall v. Enterprise Leasing Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 2006

5 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