Case Name: RICK FIMAN, CURTIS FOX, JOEL WARD GARMAN, RANDY DAN HOPKINSON, aka RANDY PETTY, RANDALL WILLIS HUDGINS, JOHN RUSSELL LOKEN, MIKE S. LYSLE, GREG E. MARTINEZ, MIKE ROMERO, LOUIS JACKSON McCALLISTER, aka JACK, STEVE D. SUTTON, DAN GEORGE DOIY, TOM ROBINSON Charged as TOM ROBBIN-SON, JACK McCALLISTER, JAMES EDWARD HOOVER, MICHAEL GINES, DAVID BUMGARDNER, RONNIE GOMEZ, ELROA LANE HANSEN, DONALD STEVEN TUCKER, SALVATORE PATERNO, CAROL A. MERCADO, and HARVEY DAVID RICH, Appellants, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1973-03-29
Citations: 89 Nev. 117
Docket Number: Nos. 7155-7174 and 7176-7180
Parties: RICK FIMAN, CURTIS FOX, JOEL WARD GARMAN, RANDY DAN HOPKINSON, aka RANDY PETTY, RANDALL WILLIS HUDGINS, JOHN RUSSELL LOKEN, MIKE S. LYSLE, GREG E. MARTINEZ, MIKE ROMERO, LOUIS JACKSON McCALLISTER, aka JACK, STEVE D. SUTTON, DAN GEORGE DOIY, TOM ROBINSON Charged as TOM ROBBIN-SON, JACK McCALLISTER, JAMES EDWARD HOOVER, MICHAEL GINES, DAVID BUMGARDNER, RONNIE GOMEZ, ELROA LANE HANSEN, DONALD STEVEN TUCKER, SALVATORE PATERNO, CAROL A. MERCADO, and HARVEY DAVID RICH, Appellants, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 117–117

Head Matter:
RICK FIMAN, CURTIS FOX, JOEL WARD GARMAN, RANDY DAN HOPKINSON, aka RANDY PETTY, RANDALL WILLIS HUDGINS, JOHN RUSSELL LOKEN, MIKE S. LYSLE, GREG E. MARTINEZ, MIKE ROMERO, LOUIS JACKSON McCALLISTER, aka JACK, STEVE D. SUTTON, DAN GEORGE DOIY, TOM ROBINSON Charged as TOM ROBBIN-SON, JACK McCALLISTER, JAMES EDWARD HOOVER, MICHAEL GINES, DAVID BUMGARDNER, RONNIE GOMEZ, ELROA LANE HANSEN, DONALD STEVEN TUCKER, SALVATORE PATERNO, CAROL A. MERCADO, and HARVEY DAVID RICH, Appellants, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.
Nos. 7155-7174 and 7176-7180
March 29, 1973
508 P.2d 1017
George H. Spizzirri, of Las Vegas, for Appellants.
Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; Roy A. Woofter, District Attorney, and Charles L. Garner, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
The identical issues raised in these appeals were considered and rejected in Cairns v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 113, 508 P.2d 1015 (1973), decided today.
Affirmed.