Davis v. Gomez
WILLIAM DAVIS v. RAMIRO M. GOMEZ
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION Per Curiam:
Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding consideration for modification of a written contract. We disagree.
After reviewing the record, we find substantial evidence supporting that finding and, thus, the judgment is affirmed. J & J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction, Inc., 92 Nev. 590 , 555 P.2d 488 (1976); Holland Livestock v. B & C Enterprises, 92 Nev. 473 , 553 P.2d 950 (1976).
Other issues raised by appellant are without merit and we need not consider them.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.