Knapp v. Lemieux
This text of 634 P.2d 454 (Knapp v. Lemieux) 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.
Opinion
[451]*451OPINION
This is an appeal from a default judgment and from orders denying appellants’ request to vacate the judgment. Appellants filed a timely opening brief, but respondents have not filed an answering brief. NRAP 31(a). On June 9, 1981, we ordered respondents to show cause why their failure to file a brief should not be treated as a confession of error. In response to our order, counsel for respondents filed an affidavit which neither sets forth sufficient reasons for the failure to file an answering brief, nor demonstrates good cause why that failure should not be treated as a confession of error.
Having reviewed appellants’ brief, the record on appeal, and counsel’s affidavit, we elect to treat respondents’ failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error. NRAP 31(c); see Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Nelson, 96 Nev. 825, 619 P.2d 534 (1980).
The default judgment and the order denying vacation of the judgment are reversed. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
634 P.2d 454, 97 Nev. 450, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-lemieux-nev-1981.