Nevada Supreme Court· 4/5/1962

Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel Corp.

Citations

370 P.2d 682
78 Nev. 182
1962 Nev. LEXIS 116

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that appellant’s claim for loss of consortium “was dependent upon the success of his wife’s claim . . . [and] [h]er claim not having been established, his must fail as well”
concluding that appellant’s claim for loss of consortium “was dependent upon the success of his wife’s claim . . . [and] [h]er claim not having been established, his must fail as well”
concluding that a two-foot-wide, four-inch-high planter containing foliage, running along a plate glass window was obvious as a matter of law, and thereby precluding a failure-to-warn action for injury caused by the planter
concluding that a two-foot-wide, four-inch-high planter containing foliage, running along a plate glass window was obvious as a matter of law, and thereby precluding a failure-to-warn action for injury caused by the planter
giving an instruction that stated, in part, that “the mere fact that an unfortunate or bad condition resulted to the decedent. . . does not prove or even imply, that the defendants ... by virtue of that fact alone, were negligent”
“In the absence of negligence on the part of [defendant], a determination of whether Mrs. Gunlock is chargeable with contributory negligence is unnecessary.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McNamee, Badt, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.