Fitzpatrick v. Floriano

Nevada Supreme Court

Fitzpatrick v. Floriano

544 P.2d 895, 92 Nev. 18, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 503

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1976

DocketNo. 8226

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 544 P.2d 895 (Fitzpatrick v. Floriano) 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

Fitzpatrick v. Floriano, 544 P.2d 895, 92 Nev. 18, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 503 (Neb. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Instead 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.

Respondent’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. [19]*19Sheriff of Washoe Comity, 87 Nev. 549, 551, 491 P.2d 43 (1971).

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

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