Oelsner v. Charles C. Meek Lumber Co. of Carson City, 8503
| Decision Date | 20 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 8503,8503 |
| Citation | 92 Nev. 576,555 P.2d 217 |
| Parties | Paul F. OELSNER and Elaine E. Oelsner, husband and wife, Appellants, v. CHARLES C. MEEK LUMBER CO. OF CARSON CITY, a partnership, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
An order granting appellants' motion for summary judgment was entered March 14, 1975. The order, inter alia, awarded appellants an attorney's fee in the amount of $2000. Notice of entry of the order was served on respondent's counsel, by mail, the same day. NRAP 4(a); NRAP 26(a).
On April 4, 1975, respondent filed a motion pursuant to NRCP 59 '. . . for an order amending and altering the judgment herein regarding attorney's fees . . .' On September 19, 1975, the trial court granted the motion and entered an order reducing the fee award to $1000. This appeal contends the September 19, 1975 order is void. We agree.
A 'motion to amend' filed under NRCP 59 '. . . shall be served not later than 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment.' NRCP 59(e). Here, the 'motion to amend' was not filed within the required 10 day period; therefore, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider it. Cf. Culinary Workers v. Haugen, 76 Nev. 424, 357 P.2d 113 (1960). Accordingly, the September 19, 1975 order, being null and void, is vacated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Giacomo
...denied. Hunter v. Sutton, 45 Nev. 427, 195 P. 342 (1922); Yates v. Behrend, 280 F.2d 64 (D.C.Cir.1960); cf. Oelsner v. Charles C. Meek Lumber Co., 92 Nev. 576, 555 P.2d 217 (1976). Likewise, untimely motions for new trial or for judgment n. o. v. do not toll the 30-day period in which a not......
-
Horvath v. Gladstone
...Nev. 26, 505 P.2d 290 (1973); United Pac. Ins. Co. v. St. Denis, 81 Nev. 103, 399 P.2d 135 (1965); see also Oelsner v. Charles C. Meek Lumber Co., 92 Nev. 576, 555 P.2d 217 (1976).2 A cross-complaint by the Horvaths against the Gregorys is still pending in district court. See NRCP 54(b).3 T......
-
Morrell v. Edwards, 13384
...98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp. v. Nowalk, 420 F.2d 858 (3rd Cir. 1970); cf. Oelsner v. Charles C. Meek Lumber Co., 92 Nev. 576, 555 P.2d 217 (1976) (district court without jurisdiction to consider untimely NRCP 59(e) motion). Here the motion was not filed unt......
-
Stapp v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
...established that a district court is without jurisdiction to consider an untimely NRCP 59(e) motion. Oelsner v. Charles C. Meek Lumber Co., 92 Nev. 576, 577, 555 P.2d 217, 217 (1976). Because the motion to amend was not filed within the statutorily prescribed ten-day period, the amended jud......