Nevada Supreme Court· 5/29/2008
Mayfield v. Koroghli
Citations
- 124 Nev. 343
- 184 P.3d 362
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the district court should apportion costs award when there are multiple defendants, unless it is \rendered impracticable by the interrelationship of the claims\
- holding that a party to a contract is “excused from performing under the contract” if the other party “fail[s] to perform within a reasonable time” 17 under the circumstances
- holding that the district court should apportion costs award when there are multiple defendants, unless it is \rendered impracticable by the interrelationship of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 61 (0) 1947A the claims\
- holding that the district court should apportion costs award when there are multiple defendants, unless it is \rendered impracticable by the interrelationship of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 61 (0) 1947. the claims\
- holding that the district court should apportion costs award when there are multiple SUPREME COURT defendants, unless it is \rendered impracticable by the interrelationship of OF NEVADA 101 1947A 60 ' the claims\
- holding that the district court should apportion costs award when there are multiple SUPREME COURT defendants, unless it is \rendered impracticable by the interrelationship of OF NEVADA 101 1947A 60 ' the claims\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Douglas, Hardesty, Parraguirre
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cain v. PriceNevada Supreme Court· 2018-04-12· cited 31×
- DETWILER VS. DIST. CT. (BAKER BOYER NAT'L BANK)Nevada Supreme Court· 2021-05-06· cited 9×
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. HyattNevada Supreme Court· 2014-09-18
- FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATTNevada Supreme Court· 2017-09-14
- CAIN VS. PRICENevada Supreme Court· 2018-04-12
- FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATTNevada Supreme Court· 2017-12-26
- DAVIDSON VS. DAVIDSONNevada Supreme Court· 2016-09-29
- ANDERSON VS. MANDALAY CORP. C/W 61871Nevada Supreme Court· 2015-10-15
- Greenland Super Mkt., Inc. Vs. Kl Vegas, Llc C/W 74931Nevada Supreme Court· 2019-11-21
- In Re: Admin. Of The Ssj'S Issue Tr.Nevada Supreme Court· 2022-06-22
- Yazmine Haidar and Harold M. Katz III v. Chad A. Margetta and Lynette MargettaCourt of Appeals of Mississippi· 2022-11-22
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Abdallah v. United Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1996-02-22· cited 130×
- Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. BayerNevada Supreme Court· 2007-10-11· cited 96×
- Zancanaro v. CrossArizona Supreme Court· 1959-05-27· cited 67×
- Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 1980-10-20· cited 66×
- Rosenstein v. SteeleNevada Supreme Court· 1987-12-22· cited 64×
- Silver Dollar Club v. Cosgriff Neon CompanyNevada Supreme Court· 1964-03-04· cited 37×
- Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 2008-02-29· cited 37×
- Stratton v. TejaniCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1982-11-24· cited 20×
- Finalco, Inc. v. RooseveltCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1991-10-22· cited 19×
- New Colony Homes, Inc. v. Long Island Property Group, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2005-09-26· cited 17×
- Pelligreen v. WoodMissouri Court of Appeals· 2003-05-06· cited 13×
- Serpa v. DarlingNevada Supreme Court· 1991-04-30· cited 12×
- O'MALLEY v. CummingsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1967-09-14· cited 12×
- Mohr Park Manor, Inc. v. Bank of NevadaNevada Supreme Court· 1971-11-02· cited 6×
- K-Com Micrographics, Inc. v. Neighborhood Economic Development Corp. (In Re K-Com Micrographics, Inc.)District of Columbia· 1993-10-08· cited 6×
- Borgerson v. ScanlonNevada Supreme Court· 2001-03-14· cited 4×
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.