Stuart v. Boulware was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1996. The case involved a dispute between two former business partners, Stuart and Boulware, over the ownership of a company. Stuart had originally owned the company, but had transferred it to Boulware in exchange for a promissory note. When Boulware failed to make payments on the note, Stuart sued to regain ownership of the company. The Supreme Court held that Stuart was entitled to the company, as Boulware had failed to make payments on the note. The Court also held that the transfer of the company was valid, as it had been done in good faith and with consideration. The Court further held that Boulware was liable for the amount of the note, as well as any damages that Stuart had suffered as a result of the transfer. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Stuart was entitled to the company, and that Boulware was liable for the amount of the note and any damages that Stuart had suffered as a result of the transfer. The Court also held that the transfer of the company was valid, as it had been done in good faith and with consideration.

In the Supreme Court case of Stuart v. Boulware, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He believed that under Nevada law, an employer is not liable for negligent hiring or retention unless they knew or had reason to know of an employee’s dangerous propensities prior to their employment. In this case, there was no evidence presented by either party showing that the employer had any knowledge of such tendencies before hiring Mr. Boulware as a security guard at one of its casinos. Therefore, Justice Scalia concluded that it would be inappropriate for the court to impose liability on employers who have no actual knowledge about potential risks posed by employees they hire without conducting background checks or other investigations into their backgrounds beforehand.