Pearce v. Boberg, 6411
| Decision Date | 24 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 6411,6411 |
| Parties | Stephen Dale PEARCE and Frederick Pearce, Appellants, v. Debra Kay BOBERG, also known as Debra Kay Pearce, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Diehl, Recanzone & Evans, and Stanley Smart, Fallon, for appellants.
Hibbs & Bullis and Stan L. Lyon, Reno, for respondent.
The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a single-car accident 17 miles east of Lovelock, the county seat of Pershing County, have appealed from an Order of the Second Judicial District Court in and for Washoe County, where the action was filed, denying defendants' motion to change the place of trial from Reno to Lovelock. This relief was sought under NRS 13.050(2), which permits the court to change the place of trial when 'the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.' NRS 13.050(2)(c).
The plaintiff contends that because defendants' motion was not made before expiration of their time for answering plaintiff's complaint, the right to seek such relief is foreclosed; however, our holding in Sheckles v. Sheckles, 3 Nev. 404 (1867), is contrary to this contention.
Though timely, defendants' motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the lower court, whose exercise of discretion 'will not be disturbed unless manifestly abused.' Fabbi v. First National Bank, 62 Nev. 405, 413, 153 P.2d 122, 125 (1944). While some considerations might favor a trial in Lovelock, others favor a trial in Reno, and we are therefore unable to perceive a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court.
It would serve no useful purpose to review all of the arguments the parties have offered, on the basis of matters both within and outside the record. However, we note that the parties reside in California, near San Francisco; that at least one important witness for the plaintiff, her doctor, must be brought from there for the trial; that, unless hospital records from California can be proved in some other way, plaintiff may also be required to transport the records' custodian to testify; that while there is direct air transportation from the San Francisco area to Reno, there is none to Lovelock; that, while defendants claim to have eight witnesses who are residents of Pershing County, the necessity of some is uncertain from the record; and Lovelock is only some 92 miles from Reno, less than a two-hour trip over a good highway.
The order of the lower court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. United States
...an opportunity to discuss the rule but which are equivocal as to the choice of law decision. Primary among these is Pearce v. Boberg, 87 Nev. 255, 485 P.2d 101 (1971), further decision, 89 Nev. 266, 510 P.2d 1358 (1973). This action, brought by Boberg against Pearce and his father, arose fr......
-
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Tarkanian
...a manifest abuse of discretion. Fabbi v. First Nat'l Bank, 62 Nev. 405, 414, 153 P.2d 122, 125 (1944), cited in Pearce v. Boberg, 87 Nev. 255, 256, 485 P.2d 101, 101 (1971). We independently review the record only to determine whether the lower court's decision was a manifest abuse of discr......
-
Ash Springs Development Corp. v. Crunk, 10634
...below on the grounds of convenience of witnesses and the promotion of justice. Stocks v. Stocks, supra ; compare Pearce v. Boberg, 87 Nev. 255, 485 P.2d 101 (1971). Respondents are now free to proceed under NRS 13.050 in the Lincoln County Court. Stocks v. Stocks, We therefore conclude that......