Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Nev. 72

140 P.2d 580

Clack v. Jones

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1943

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1943-08-16

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1977

7 state decisions

Relies on Rickey v. Douglas Milling & Power Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1943-08-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 On Motion for Rehearing

*77 William S. Boyle, of Reno, for Appellant. H. J. Murrish and John A. Jurgenson, both of Love-lock, for Respondent.

¶2 OPINION

¶3 By the Court, Ducker, J.:

¶4 The motion for a hearing must be denied. It is based upon the alleged insufficiency of the affidavit by which the contempt proceedings were initiated. This question was not determinable on the appeal taken, nor can it be considered on this motion, because the appeal was premature. A paper filed by appellant with the motion also needs attention. It was entitled “Opening Brief in support of Motion for Rehearing.” After the filing, this designation was amended by striking out the words “Opening Brief.” The paper is an argument in support of the motion for rehearing. This is not permissible by reason of rule XV of the Rules of the Supreme Court which, in that particular reads: “The party moving for a rehearing shall within the time for filing the petition, serve a copy of the petition upon opposing counsel, who, within ten days thereafter, may file and serve a reply to the petition, and no other argument shall be heard thereon.” The rule in this respect is mandatory. Rickey v. Douglas M. & P. Co., 45 Nev. 341, 204 P. 504, 205 P. 328.

¶5 It is ordered that the motion for a rehearing be and the same is hereby denied, and the paper entitled, “In Support of Motion for Rehearing,” is hereby stricken.

/62/nev/72 · .json · Public domain