Opinion

Dow Chemical Co. v. Mahlum

  • 114 Nev. 1468
  • 970 P.2d 98
  • 1998 Nev. LEXIS 169
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 31, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Ames
On the bench
Rose, Ames, Maupin
Cited by
106 cases

Overruled in part, on other grounds by Ges, Inc. v. Corbitt, 117 Nev. 265 (2001)

recognizing that fraudulent or intentional concealment "The Byrd respondents were not contracted to do anything on the subject property, but were sued under an alter ego theory for Ditch Diggers. 2 Appellants cannot proceed under NRS Chapter 40 because they did not give the required notices. NRS 40.645. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A requires a duty to disclose the information allegedly concealed

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that fraudulent or intentional concealment "The Byrd respondents were not contracted to do anything on the subject property, but were sued under an alter ego theory for Ditch Diggers. 2 Appellants cannot proceed under NRS Chapter 40 because they did not give the required notices. NRS 40.645. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A requires a duty to disclose the information allegedly concealed
  • concluding that a rheumatologist properly testified as an expert even though his conclusion was based solely on his training and experience and also without addressing whether his conclusion was capable of being tested
  • concluding that evidence supported a negligent undertaking claim but not an aiding and abetting claim because there was no evidence the defendant knowingly supported or encouraged fraudulent conduct
  • concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted testimony from board-certified medical doctors

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled in part, on other grounds by Ges, Inc. v. Corbitt, 117 Nev. 265 (2001)

    970 P.2d 98 (Nev. 1998), abrogated in part by GES, 21 P.3d at 11
    Nevada Supreme CourtApr 13, 200139 citing opinionsother groundsin partRead it

The opinion

Ames, D. L,

concurring:

I concur in the opinion’s analysis and result except that I do not believe the trademark agreement has much, if any, probative value in determining Dow Chemical’s negligent undertaking liability. 1

The Governor appointed the Honorable Jack Ames, District Judge, to sit in the place of The Honorable Cliff Young, Justice, who voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this appeal. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.