Alvis v. State

660 P.2d 980, 99 Nev. 184, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 426
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 28, 1983
Docket14656
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 660 P.2d 980 (Alvis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alvis v. State, 660 P.2d 980, 99 Nev. 184, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 426 (Neb. 1983).

Opinion

*185 OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a petition for judicial review and from an order denying rehearing of that decision.

Alvis filed a complaint with the Gaming Control Board against a hotel and casino. The Board issued a decision in favor of the club. Alvis thereafter petitioned the district court for judicial review of the Board’s decision. Respondents subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Notice of entry of the order was served by mail on October 5, 1982.

Alvis subsequently moved for rehearing. The district court issued an order on January 3, 1983, denying the motion. Notice of entry of the order was served by mail on January 5, 1983. Alvis filed his notice of appeal on February 7, 1983. The notice of appeal listed both the order denying the petition for judicial review and the order denying rehearing.

Respondents have now filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion principally asserts that the notice of appeal was filed beyond the 30-day period specified in NRAP 4(a) and that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. We agree.

NRAP 4(a) clearly provides that the notice of appeal must be filed “within thirty (30) days of the date of service of written notice of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” In this case, respondents served the notice of entry of the order dismissing the petition for judicial review on October 5, 1982. The notice of appeal should have been filed no later than November 7, 1982. See NRAP 26(c); NRAP 4(a). Alvis failed to file his notice of appeal until February 7, 1983. The notice of appeal is untimely and this court may not, therefore, consider the appeal. See Ross v. Giacomo, 97 Nev. 550, 635 P.2d 298 (1981).

We find no merit to the contentions presented by Alvis in his memorandum of authorities opposing the motion to dismiss. In his first argument, Alvis asserts that the order issued by the *186 district court denying rehearing is a special order after final judgment and is, therefore, independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2).

NRAP 3A(b)(2) permits a party to appeal from a “special order made after final judgment.” Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 73 Nev. 143, 145, 311 P.2d 735, 736 (1957) sets forth the standard to be applied in analyzing whether an order filed after entry of judgment is appealable:

The mere fact that the order in point of time is made after a final judgment has been entered does not render it appealable. It must affect the rights of the parties growing out of final judgment.

The order denying rehearing in this case did not affect the rights of the parties as determined by the order dismissing the petition for judicial review. Accordingly, the order denying rehearing is not appealable as a special order made after final judgment. Compare Bates v. Nevada Savings & Loan Ass’n, 85 Nev. 441, 456 P.2d 450 (1969) (order granting rehearing is appealable as a special order after final judgment).

Alvis also contends that we should follow authorities in certain other jurisdictions which treat a motion for rehearing as a motion to alter or amend the'judgment. By treating Alvis’ motion as such, the time to appeal would be tolled under NRAP 4(a).

The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction that a motion for rehearing does not toll the time in which a notice of appeal may be filed. Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329 (1964); NRAP 4(a). We are not inclined to reject that rule. 1

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this appeal for láck of jurisdiction. See Ross v. Giacomo, supra.

1

A review of the motion for rehearing reveals that Alvis merely sought reconsideration of the district court’s earlier order dismissing the petition for judicial review. It cannot reasonably be construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to NRCP 59(e).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Reddy Ice Corp. v. Gill
Nevada Supreme Court, 2022
Silver Vs. Towner
Nevada Supreme Court, 2021
Sheridan Vs. Goff
Nevada Supreme Court, 2021
Ramsey Vs. Tumbarello
Nevada Supreme Court, 2021
Brown Vs. Slyman
477 P.3d 369 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2020)
Estate Of Shing Vs. Zhang
Nevada Supreme Court, 2020
Holmes Vs. San Rafael Hoa
Nevada Supreme Court, 2020
Holmes Vs. Holmes
Nevada Supreme Court, 2019
Engel v. Boulder City
Nevada Supreme Court, 2019
In Re: Guardianship of Hillygus
Nevada Supreme Court, 2018
Sunde v. Ridge
Nevada Supreme Court, 2018
Stickler v. Gademsky
Nevada Supreme Court, 2017
Axelrod v. Perrin (Child Custody)
Nevada Supreme Court, 2016
Ferlingere v. Pinto
Nevada Supreme Court, 2016
State v. Reliant Energy, Inc.
289 P.3d 1186 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2012)
Sicor, Inc. v. Hutchison
266 P.3d 608 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2011)
AA PRIMO BUILDERS, LLC v. Washington
245 P.3d 1190 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2010)
Arnold v. Kip
168 P.3d 1050 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2007)
Winston Products Co. v. DeBoer
134 P.3d 726 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
660 P.2d 980, 99 Nev. 184, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvis-v-state-nev-1983.