Legal Opinion

Burbank v. Rivers

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1888No. 1269PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe '•County. R. R. Bigelow, District Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. The time for appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial does not commence to run until the order is actually entered in the minutes. (Civ. Pr. Act, Sec. 330; In the Matter of the 15th Ave. Ext., 54 Cal. 179.) The evident intent of our statute was that the party moving for a new trial should have notice of the fact that his motion was refused, and that he should have that notice from the minutes of the court, and it is absurd to say that his…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Hawley, J.:

The title of this cause in the district court was Silas. E. Bwrlanlc, Contestant, v. Frank Rivers, Contestee. The case was tried before Hon. William M. Boardman, District Judge. Judgment therein- was rendered in favor of respondent. Upon an appeal taken therefrom the judgment of the district court was affirmed. (Burbank v. Rivers, 20 Nev. 81.) Thereafter appellant moved the district court, Hon. R. R. Bigelow presiding as district judge, to decide his motion for a new trial which had previously been submitted to Judge Boardman. In the mean time respondent moved the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Burbank v. RiversNevada Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by8 opinions

Steven W. Collier v. Bob BayerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
Hahn v. CurtisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
Thacher v. International Supply Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
Bottini v. MongoloNevada Supreme Court · 1921
Steele v. Rail & River Coal Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1927

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.