Berto v. Wilson

Nevada Supreme Court

Berto v. Wilson

312 P.2d 635, 73 Nev. 162, 1957 Nev. LEXIS 95

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1957

DocketNo. 4013

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 312 P.2d 635 (Berto v. Wilson) 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

Berto v. Wilson, 312 P.2d 635, 73 Nev. 162, 1957 Nev. LEXIS 95 (Neb. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam,:

This is before us upon motion of the respondents to dismiss the appeal for failure to docket the appeal and file the record on appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 73 (g) NRCP. Notice of appeal was filed October 23, 1956. Orders of the trial court were subsequently secured extending time for doeketing and filing to February 2, 1957 which carried somewhat beyond the 90 days extension which that court is authorized to grant under Rule 73(g) NRCP. On January 22, 1957 (91 days after filing of notice of appeal) the appeal was docketed by respondents for the purpose of moving its dismissal and motion to dismiss was filed. The record on appeal was received in this court January 29, 1957, eight days late but prior to the February 2 date to which the trial court had extended time in excess of its authority.

Movants emphasize delay by the appellants in ordering the reporter’s transcript. Appellants reply that financial difficulties precluded an earlier commitment to the expense of the appeal. Upon all of the affidavits we conclude that the facts of this case compare with those of Garibaldi Trucking Co. v. Waldren, 72 Nev. 12, 292 P.2d 356, and that dismissal of the appeal would not be warranted under the circumstances.

Motion denied. The appellants shall have 15 days from date hereof within which to file their opening brief.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam,:

This is before us upon motion of the respondents to dismiss the appeal for failure to docket the appeal and file the record on appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 73 (g) NRCP. Notice of appeal was filed October 23, 1956. Orders of the trial court were subsequently secured extending time for doeketing and filing to February 2, 1957 which carried somewhat beyond the 90 days extension which that court is authorized to grant under Rule 73(g) NRCP. On January 22, 1957 (91 days after filing of notice of appeal) the appeal was docketed by respondents for the purpose of moving its dismissal and motion to dismiss was filed. The record on appeal was received in this court January 29, 1957, eight days late but prior to the February 2 date to which the trial court had extended time in excess of its authority.

Movants emphasize delay by the appellants in ordering the reporter’s transcript. Appellants reply that financial difficulties precluded an earlier commitment to the expense of the appeal. Upon all of the affidavits we conclude that the facts of this case compare with those of Garibaldi Trucking Co. v. Waldren, 72 Nev. 12, 292 P.2d 356, and that dismissal of the appeal would not be warranted under the circumstances.

Motion denied. The appellants shall have 15 days from date hereof within which to file their opening brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 P.2d 635, 73 Nev. 162, 1957 Nev. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berto-v-wilson-nev-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack