misrepresentation, or breach of contract, and that appellants had not
proven their damages. This appeal followed.
As an initial matter, appellants argue that the district court's
refusal to sanction respondents for not appearing at a calendar call,
refusal to admit certain evidence, and allowing respondents to supply
certain trial exhibits and use an interpreter were an abuse of discretion.
Appellants, however, did not request transcripts from either the trial or
any relevant hearings related to these issues, and nothing in the trial
court record provides any indication as to the grounds on which the
district court made these• determinations. Absent these transcripts, we
must assume that they support the district court's decisions such that we
cannot conclude that any abuse of discretion occurred in its resolutions of
these issues. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys., 123 Nev. 598, 604, 172
P.3d 131, 135 (2007); see also M.C. Multi-Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale
Assocs., Ltd., 124 Nev. 901, 913, 193 P.3d 536, 544 (2008) (indicating that
the district court's evidentiary decisions will not be disturbed on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion).
Appellants further assert that, with regard to the merits of
their claims, the evidence they provided proved their causes of action and
damages so that the judgment against them was improper. But based on
our review of the documents before us on appeal, we conclude that the
district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not
clearly erroneous, Weddell v. 1120, Inc., 128 Nev. „ 271 P.3d 743,
748 (2012) (noting that factual determinations will be upheld when they
are not clearly erroneous and are support by substantial evidence, which
has been defined as that which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion), and that the district court did not err in
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) (947A e
its legal determinations. Id. (providing that the district court's legal
conclusions are reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
Pickering
J. J.
Parragmrre Saitta
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Kenneth Dinkins
Tina Jackson
Elizabeth J. Foley
Eighth District Court Clerk
1 We have considered appellants' other arguments and conclude that
they lack merit and do not warrant reversal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A 4411r,
Dinkins v. Lee
Combined Opinion