Case Name: PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, aka PETA, a Delaware Non-Profit Corporation; PERFORMING ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY, aka PAWS, a California Non-Profit Corporation; JEANNE ROUSH, OTTAVIO GESMUNDO, and PAT DERBY, Appellants, v. BOBBY BEROSINI, LTD., a Nevada Corporation, and BOHUMIL BEROUSEK, aka BOBBY BEROSINI, Individually, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1995-05-22
Citations: 111 Nev. 615
Docket Number: No. 21580
Parties: PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, aka PETA, a Delaware Non-Profit Corporation; PERFORMING ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY, aka PAWS, a California Non-Profit Corporation; JEANNE ROUSH, OTTAVIO GESMUNDO, and PAT DERBY, Appellants, v. BOBBY BEROSINI, LTD., a Nevada Corporation, and BOHUMIL BEROUSEK, aka BOBBY BEROSINI, Individually, Respondents.
Judges: Steffen, C. J., Young and Shearing, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 615–639

Head Matter:
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, aka PETA, a Delaware Non-Profit Corporation; PERFORMING ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY, aka PAWS, a California Non-Profit Corporation; JEANNE ROUSH, OTTAVIO GESMUNDO, and PAT DERBY, Appellants, v. BOBBY BEROSINI, LTD., a Nevada Corporation, and BOHUMIL BEROUSEK, aka BOBBY BEROSINI, Individually, Respondents.
No. 21580
May 22, 1995
895 P.2d 1269
Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison & Howard and Robert D. Martin, Las Vegas, for Appellant Gesmundo.
Hirschkop & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants PETA, Roush and Gesmundo.
Watkiss & Saperstein, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Appellants PETA and Roush.
Anderson, Pearl, Hardesty, Lyle, Murphy & Stone, Reno, for Appellants PAWS and Derby.
Gewerter & Bohn, Las Vegas; Thomas Pitaro, Las Vegas; Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, Reno, for Respondents.
Susan Quig-Terry, Las Vegas, for Amici Curiae Humane Society of the United States, et. al.
The Honorable Robert E. Rose, then-Chief Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this appeal.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REHEARING
On April 14, 1995, this court granted rehearing in the above matter on the basis that an appearance of impropriety might exist with regard to one of the members of the panel which issued our prior opinion, dated January 27, 1994. In granting rehearing the court entered its order that, on rehearing, this matter would be submitted on the record, the pleadings, and the tape recording of the oral argument conducted by the court on April 21, 1992. It was further ordered that District Judge Jack Lehman would be disqualified and that Justice Miriam Shearing would participate on rehearing in the stead of Judge Lehman. Justice Shearing has reviewed the record, the briefs, and the tape recording of the oral argument. Whereupon, the court now issues the following opinion on rehearing.