Rowland v. Lepire, 11936

Decision Date27 September 1979
Docket NumberNo. 11936,11936
Citation600 P.2d 237,95 Nev. 639
PartiesGlen E. ROWLAND, Martin L. Rowland and Rowland Corporation, Appellants, v. Eugene LEPIRE and Judy Lepire, Respondents.
CourtNevada Supreme Court
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs' counsel had default entered and later secured a default judgment against defendants without notice to their counsel who had requested additional time within which to file an answer. Such advantage should not have been taken without first inquiring about defense counsel's intention to proceed. Supreme Court Rule 187; 1 Nevada Ind. Guaranty v. Sturgeon, 80 Nev. 254, 391 P.2d 862 (1964), concurring opinion. Accordingly, we annul the judgment entered below and remand for further proceedings.

MOWBRAY, C. J., and THOMPSON, GUNDERSON and MANOUKIAN, JJ., and GREGORY, 2 District Judge (Ret.), concur.

1 SCR 187: "A member of the state bar . . . . (w)hen he knows the identity of a lawyer representing an opposing party, . . . should not take advantage of the lawyer by causing any default or dismissal to be entered without first inquiring about the opposing lawyer's intention to proceed."

2 The Chief Justice designated Hon. Frank B. Gregory, Senior Judge, to sit in this case in place of the Hon. Cameron Batjer, Justice, who was disqualified. Nev.Const. art. 6, § 19; SCR 10.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Landreth v. Malik
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 12 Mayo 2011
    ...to inquire into the opposing party's intent to proceed before requesting a default under this court's holding in Rowland v. Lepire, 95 Nev. 639, 600 P.2d 237 (1979), and Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.5A. Generally, one notice of an intent to request a default is sufficient for purpos......
  • Landreth v. Malik, 49732.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 24 Diciembre 2009
    ...intent to file a default. In addition, the district court did not address Malik's attorney's duties under Rowland v. Lepire, 95 Nev. 639, 640, 600 P.2d 237, 237-38 (1979), and RPC 3.5A (formerly SCR 175), which provides, "[w]hen a lawyer knows ... the identity of a lawyer representing an op......
  • Langford v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 27 Septiembre 1979
  • Chrome Hearts, LLC v. Talulah
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 25 Febrero 2013
    ...without first inquiring about the opposing lawyer's intention to proceed." In support of its argument, Defendant cites Rowland v. Lepire, 600 P.2d 237 (Nev. 1979), in which the Nevada Supreme Court remanded to the district court an entry of default and default judgment that had been secured......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT