Johnson v. Utile
Nevada Supreme Court
472 P.2d 335 (1970)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Clarence and Glodean Johnson (defendants) agreed to sell their property to Joe and Ann Utile (plaintiffs). At the time of the agreement, the property contained one well (Well No. 1), and the agreement required the Johnsons to drill a second well (Well No. 2). Prior to closing, the Johnsons learned and informed the Utiles that Well No. 1 was no longer operational. The Johnsons suggested that they would remove Well No. 1 from the sale but include their Well No. 1 equipment in the deal, leaving it on Well No. 2. The Utiles drafted a letter accepting the Johnsons’ proposal, provided that the equipment worked, and Well No. 2 could produce an agreed-upon minimum amount of gallonage. As it turned out, Well No. 2 did not ultimately produce sufficient gallonage, and the Utiles drilled a new well (Well No. 3) to support their needs. The Utiles sued the Johnsons for breach. The trial court awarded the Utiles damages for (1) the loss of Well No. 1, (2) the costs of trying to get Well No. 2 to meet their needs, (3) the costs to drill Well No. 3, and (4) other incidental damages and attorneys’ fees. The Johnsons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mowbray, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
