Case ID: nev_92/html/0647-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CASINO CAR WASH, INC., and NEIL STEIN, Appellants, v. WARD J. KOEPENICK, BETTY L. KOEPENICK, GYLE HALVERSON and HANNA INDUSTRIES, Respondents.
    No. 8718
    November 22, 1976
    555 P.2d 1327
    [Rehearing denied December 17, 1976]
    
      Hále and Belford, and J. Stephen Peek, Reno, for Appellants.
    
      Stewart & Horton, Reno, for Respondents.
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellants’ only claim of error is that certain findings of fact by the district court are unsupported by the evidence. After reviewing the record, we conclude the findings are supported by substantial evidence, and, thus, we will not disturb them on appeal. Alves v. Bumguardner, 91 Nev. 799, 544 P.2d 436 (1975); County of Clark v. Lucas, 91 Nev. 263, 534 P.2d 499 (1975).

Affirmed.