People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini Ltd.
Nev.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Hoch v. Gaughan South, LLC D. Nev.
- 2025Smith v. Findlay Automotive, Inc. D. Nev.
- 2023Feasby v. Logan Ohio Ct. App.
- 2023Dayton v. Siff Ohio Ct. App.
- 2023PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas D. Nev.
- 2022Morlatt v. Johnson Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022McCall v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department D. Nev.
- 2021Bonilla v. Ancestry.Com Operations, Inc. N.D. Ill.
- 2021Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc. D. Nev.
- 2021Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. D. Nev.
Cites 2 journal articles
Cites 27 casesshowing 8
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
- Smith v. Jack Eckerd Corp.
- Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
- Kaiser v. Western R/C Flyers, Inc.
- Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
- Posadas v. City of Reno
- Kemp v. Block
- Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
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.
Attorneys
- 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.
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.