Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate Co., 4792
| Decision Date | 11 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4792,4792 |
| Citation | 395 P.2d 329,80 Nev. 383 |
| Parties | John C. WHITEHEAD, Appellant, v. NORMAN KAYE REAL ESTATE CO., a Nevada corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Pursel & Johnson, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Murray Posin, Las Vegas, for respondent.
Respondent moved to dismiss the appeals herein upon the ground that the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
After the action was at issue, respondent moved the lower court for summary judgment, basing its motion 'upon the affidavit of Irwin Sadur, Vice President of Plaintiff corporation, the papers, pleadings, and records on file.' Appellant filed an affidavit in opposition to said motion. After a hearing, the court granted the motion and ordered judgment entered in favor of respondent. Judgment was entered accordingly. On April 6, 1964 written notice of entry of the judgment was served. On April 13, 1964 appellant filed a motion entitled 'Motion for Rehearing' wherein he moved the court 'for a Rehearing of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment * * * for the reasons set forth in Defendant's Points and Authorities filed herewith and made a part hereof.' The papers filed with this latter motion consisted of an affidavit of one George L. Wright, with an exhibit attached, a written argument with respect to the legal effect of the matters contained in the affidavit, and a citation of District Court Rule 20(4). 1
Respondent filed points and authorities in opposition to a rehearing which contain arguments pertaining to the effect of the Wright affidavit.
On May 11, 1964 the court signed an order reciting therein that the motion for rehearing came on for hearing, 'and the Court, after hearing argument of counsel, and considering the evidence presented, and due deliberation having been made, it is ordered that the Motion for Rehearing entered in the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby denied.'
Whether the court on the motion for rehearing considered only the affidavit of Wright and the written arguments for and against a rehearing, or whether it also considered the matters presented on the motion for summary judgment, cannot be determined from the record before us. If the former, it refused to grant permission to rehear the motion for summary judgment. If the latter, it actually reheard the motion and refused to disturb its former ruling.
Notice of appeal 'from the Order granting Summary Judgment, the Judgment entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Wash.
...a judgment, much less the rationale for the distinction. And tracing the cases back to their source, Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329 (1964), cited in Alvis, 99 Nev. at 186 n. 1, 660 P.2d at 981 n. 1, only adds to the mystery, because in Whitehead, NRCP 59(e) ......
-
Hall v. Seattle School Dist. 1
...607 P.2d 841, 843 (Utah 1980); In re Timothy P.N., 48 Cal.App.3d 862, 867, 121 Cal.Rptr. 880 (1975); Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate Co., 80 Nev. 383, 385, 395 P.2d 329 (1964). To the extent that these cases are applicable to the case at bar we find them unpersuasive in view of our own......
-
Gunlord Corp. v. Bozzano
...of the 30-day period within which to appeal. Arrate v. Nevada National Bank, 89 Nev. 55, 506 P.2d 86 (1973); Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329 (1964). Neither of those cases control, since here the motion for rehearing was made and an order granting rehearing e......
-
Walker v. Scully, 13335
...appeal.3 The motion for rehearing did not toll the running of the thirty-day period set forth in NRAP 4(a). Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329 (1964); NRAP 4(a). Appellant argues that he was precluded from filing the notice of appeal until after the district cou......