Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Nev. 18

Fitzpatrick v. Floriano

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1976

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1976-01-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1981

2 state decisions

Relies on Kitchen Factors, Inc. v. Brown · Paso Builders, Inc. v. Hebard · TOIYABE SUPPLY COMPANY v. Arcade Dress Shops, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-01-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

Per Curiam:

¶2Instead of filing a brief respondent’s counsel of record filed a “response to appellant’s opening brief” wherein he informed this court that respondent did not wish to retain him to pursue the appeal. Counsel then asked us to decide the matter on the record below, as well as the brief filed with the district court.

¶3Respondent’s desire not to pursue this appeal and his failure to have an adequate brief filed with this court amounts to a confession of error. Toiyabe Supply Co. v. Arcade, 74 Nev. 314, 330 P.2d 121 (1958); Paso Builders, Inc. v. Hebard, 83 Nev. 165, 170, 426 P.2d 731 (1967); Kitchen Factors, Inc. v. Brown, 91 Nev. 308, 535 P.2d 677 (1975). See Petri v. *19Sheriff of Washoe Comity, 87 Nev. 549, 551, 491 P.2d 43 (1971).

¶4The order of the district court, which granted the extraordinary writ of mandamus, is reversed.

/92/nev/18 · .json · Public domain