Walport v. Walport

Nevada Supreme Court

Walport v. Walport

646 P.2d 1215, 98 Nev. 301, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 456

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1982

Docket13639

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 646 P.2d 1215 (Walport v. Walport) 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

Walport v. Walport, 646 P.2d 1215, 98 Nev. 301, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 456 (Neb. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

*302 OPINION

Per Curiam:

On January 20, 1982, respondent was granted 30 days in which to obtain counsel, and 60 days in which to file her brief in this matter. Respondent failed to comply with that order. On April 5, 1982, we entered an order, sua sponte, granting respondent an additional 30 days to obtain counsel and to file her brief in this matter. Respondent was, at that time, informed that failure to comply with our order might be treated by the court as a confession of error and appropriate disposition of the appeal made. Nevertheless, respondent has not filed an answering brief and, apparently, has not retained counsel.

We choose to treat respondent’s conduct as a confession of error. NRAP 31(c); Rockwell v. Rockwell, 98 Nev. 80, 640 P.2d 1318 (1982). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to modify the decree of divorce in this matter, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings.

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

*302 OPINION

Per Curiam:

On January 20, 1982, respondent was granted 30 days in which to obtain counsel, and 60 days in which to file her brief in this matter. Respondent failed to comply with that order. On April 5, 1982, we entered an order, sua sponte, granting respondent an additional 30 days to obtain counsel and to file her brief in this matter. Respondent was, at that time, informed that failure to comply with our order might be treated by the court as a confession of error and appropriate disposition of the appeal made. Nevertheless, respondent has not filed an answering brief and, apparently, has not retained counsel.

We choose to treat respondent’s conduct as a confession of error. NRAP 31(c); Rockwell v. Rockwell, 98 Nev. 80, 640 P.2d 1318 (1982). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to modify the decree of divorce in this matter, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 P.2d 1215, 98 Nev. 301, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walport-v-walport-nev-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack