Giannopulos v. Chachas

Nevada Supreme Court

Giannopulos v. Chachas

257 P. 618, 50 Nev. 269, 1927 Nev. LEXIS 21

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 5, 1927

Docket2751

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 257 P. 618 (Giannopulos v. Chachas) 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

Giannopulos v. Chachas, 257 P. 618, 50 Nev. 269, 1927 Nev. LEXIS 21 (Neb. 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

ON MOTION TO SUSPEND APPEAL OPINION This case is before us upon the appellant's motion for an order to suspend and stay his appeal taken from an order denying his motion for a new trial in this cause.

Appellant stated in his notice of motion that upon the hearing thereof he would rely upon the record on appeal and also upon a certified transcript of certain portions of the record in the case of Jim Giannopulos v. Angelo Chachas, Gust Chachas, and Gust Kippos. The particular portions of the record so certified consist of the *Page 270 pleadings and an interlocutory judgment entered in that case after the appeal herein had been taken, referring the case to a referee for an accounting of the dealings and transactions between the parties (plaintiff and defendants) as copartners.

To follow the arguments of counsel for and against the allowance of the motion would involve the consideration of the merits of the appeal, and to avoid this we shall confine ourselves to what is considered by us to be the real question presented for determination, which is, can this court consider in support of the motion an interlocutory judgment in another and different case pending and undetermined in the court below?

1. It is a general rule that courts cannot in one case take judicial notice of their records in another and different case, even though the cases are connected. 16 Cyc. 918; 23 Corpus Juris, 113. But it is held that the general rule is not so inflexible in its application that under no circumstances can judicial notice be invoked by a showing outside the record. Sewell v. Johnson, 165 Cal. 762, 134 P. 704, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 645.

2. The argument of counsel for appellant fails to satisfy us that we can, on this motion, so relax the rule as to consider an interlocutory judgment in a case pending and undetermined in the lower court, even though the cases are connected. To do so would not only violate, but would abrogate the rule.

3. We are of opinion that the motion is not supported by any competent evidence, and we shall for that reason deny the motion,

Motion denied.

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

ON MOTION TO SUSPEND APPEAL OPINION This case is before us upon the appellant's motion for an order to suspend and stay his appeal taken from an order denying his motion for a new trial in this cause.

Appellant stated in his notice of motion that upon the hearing thereof he would rely upon the record on appeal and also upon a certified transcript of certain portions of the record in the case of Jim Giannopulos v. Angelo Chachas, Gust Chachas, and Gust Kippos. The particular portions of the record so certified consist of the *Page 270 pleadings and an interlocutory judgment entered in that case after the appeal herein had been taken, referring the case to a referee for an accounting of the dealings and transactions between the parties (plaintiff and defendants) as copartners.

To follow the arguments of counsel for and against the allowance of the motion would involve the consideration of the merits of the appeal, and to avoid this we shall confine ourselves to what is considered by us to be the real question presented for determination, which is, can this court consider in support of the motion an interlocutory judgment in another and different case pending and undetermined in the court below?

1. It is a general rule that courts cannot in one case take judicial notice of their records in another and different case, even though the cases are connected. 16 Cyc. 918; 23 Corpus Juris, 113. But it is held that the general rule is not so inflexible in its application that under no circumstances can judicial notice be invoked by a showing outside the record. Sewell v. Johnson, 165 Cal. 762, 134 P. 704, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 645.

2. The argument of counsel for appellant fails to satisfy us that we can, on this motion, so relax the rule as to consider an interlocutory judgment in a case pending and undetermined in the lower court, even though the cases are connected. To do so would not only violate, but would abrogate the rule.

3. We are of opinion that the motion is not supported by any competent evidence, and we shall for that reason deny the motion,

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 P. 618, 50 Nev. 269, 1927 Nev. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giannopulos-v-chachas-nev-1927.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack