Piazza v. Reid

Nevada Supreme Court

Piazza v. Reid

424 P.2d 413, 83 Nev. 123, 1967 Nev. LEXIS 238

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1967

DocketNo. 5184

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 424 P.2d 413 (Piazza v. Reid) 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

Piazza v. Reid, 424 P.2d 413, 83 Nev. 123, 1967 Nev. LEXIS 238 (Neb. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The issue on this appeal is whether the district court’s denial of appellants’ oral motion for continuance, which was based upon the illness of a material witness, was an abuse of discretion. Neven v. Neven, 38 Nev. 541, 148 P. 354, 154 P. 78.

Appellants failed to file an affidavit setting forth their grounds for continuance. Rule 21 of the District Court Rules of Procedure; NRS 16.010. However, notwithstanding such noncompliance, appellants contend that the undisputed circumstances, as a matter of law, compelled the district court’s granting of said motion. We do not agree. Even though the testimony of the absent witness was material to appellants’ case, it was incumbent upon them to file an affidavit in order to establish standing to attack the district court’s discretion. [124]*124Since no affidavit was filed, we cannot say that the lower court abused its discretion.

Appellants also claim error as to the maimer of computing interest on the amounts found due respondents. Respondents have conceded such error. Thus we must reverse that part of the judgment. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The issue on this appeal is whether the district court’s denial of appellants’ oral motion for continuance, which was based upon the illness of a material witness, was an abuse of discretion. Neven v. Neven, 38 Nev. 541, 148 P. 354, 154 P. 78.

Appellants failed to file an affidavit setting forth their grounds for continuance. Rule 21 of the District Court Rules of Procedure; NRS 16.010. However, notwithstanding such noncompliance, appellants contend that the undisputed circumstances, as a matter of law, compelled the district court’s granting of said motion. We do not agree. Even though the testimony of the absent witness was material to appellants’ case, it was incumbent upon them to file an affidavit in order to establish standing to attack the district court’s discretion. [124]*124Since no affidavit was filed, we cannot say that the lower court abused its discretion.

Appellants also claim error as to the maimer of computing interest on the amounts found due respondents. Respondents have conceded such error. Thus we must reverse that part of the judgment. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 P.2d 413, 83 Nev. 123, 1967 Nev. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piazza-v-reid-nev-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack