Arrate v. Nevada National Bank

Nevada Supreme Court

Arrate v. Nevada National Bank

506 P.2d 86, 89 Nev. 55, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 417

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1973

DocketNo. 6923

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 506 P.2d 86 (Arrate v. Nevada National Bank) 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

Arrate v. Nevada National Bank, 506 P.2d 86, 89 Nev. 55, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 417 (Neb. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

On February 3, 1972, respondent’s counsel served appellants’ counsel simultaneously with an order that granted respondent summary judgment, and with written notice of said order’s entry. On February 7, 1972, appellants’ counsel filed a paper titled “Motion to Reconsider Decision,” which he concedes was at most a motion for rehearing under DCR 20(4), and not one of those motions which, by specific provisions of NRCP 73(a), toll the time for appeal. By order entered March [56]*567, 1972, the court denied appellants’ “Motion to Reconsider Decision,” and appellants’ counsel attempted to appeal this order and the court’s order of February 3, through a notice of appeal filed March 23, 1972.

Since a motion for rehearing pursuant to DCR 20(4) does not toll the running of the 30-day period for filing notice of appeal, appellants’ purported appeal was untimely, and therefore must be and hereby is dismissed. Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329 (1964).

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

On February 3, 1972, respondent’s counsel served appellants’ counsel simultaneously with an order that granted respondent summary judgment, and with written notice of said order’s entry. On February 7, 1972, appellants’ counsel filed a paper titled “Motion to Reconsider Decision,” which he concedes was at most a motion for rehearing under DCR 20(4), and not one of those motions which, by specific provisions of NRCP 73(a), toll the time for appeal. By order entered March [56]*567, 1972, the court denied appellants’ “Motion to Reconsider Decision,” and appellants’ counsel attempted to appeal this order and the court’s order of February 3, through a notice of appeal filed March 23, 1972.

Since a motion for rehearing pursuant to DCR 20(4) does not toll the running of the 30-day period for filing notice of appeal, appellants’ purported appeal was untimely, and therefore must be and hereby is dismissed. Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329 (1964).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 P.2d 86, 89 Nev. 55, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrate-v-nevada-national-bank-nev-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack