Daines v. Abrams

659 P.2d 296, 99 Nev. 98, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 401
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1983·No. No. 14227·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding respondent Abrams excess compensation in connection with his appointment to represent a certain indigent in a criminal matter. Appellant Daines filed a timely opening brief, but Abrams has not filed an answering brief. On January 24, 1983, we ordered Abrams to show cause why his failure to file a brief should not be treated as a confession of error pursuant to NRAP 31(c). Abrams has filed no brief, nor has he responded to our order to show cause.

Cause appearing, we elect to treat Abrams’ conduct as a confession of error. NRAP 31(c); see Smith v. Smith, 98 Nev. 395, 649 P.2d 1374 (1982). Accordingly, the judgment below in Abrams’ favor is reversed.

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

Daines v. Abrams, 659 P.2d 296, 99 Nev. 98, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 401 (Neb. 1983).

659 P.2d 296 (Daines v. Abrams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

A. Marcus, Inc. v. Farrow
94 B.R. 513 (N.D. Illinois, 1989)
Bates v. Chronister
691 P.2d 865 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1984)