Legal Opinion

Neill Et Ux. v. Mikulich

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1937No. 3158PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Section 4 of chapter 90, Stats. 1935, provides, among other things: "Said notice of intention to move for a new trial shall be deemed to be a motion for a new trial on all the grounds stated in the notice."

And the following language found in section 9 of the same act is significant indeed: "notice of intention to move for a new trial must have been filed and served by the unsuccessful party in the action upon the prevailing party thereto before the time for an appeal from the judgment has expired."

It was clearly the purpose of the legislature in the enactment of 1935 to provide for the review…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Weck v. Reno Traction Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Garson v. Steamboat Canal Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Burbank v. RiversNevada Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Gill v. Goldfield Consolidated Mines Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Stoneburner v. Richfield Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Snyder v. GarrettNevada Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Craig v. HarrahNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Bushard v. Washoe CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Chance v. ArculariusNevada Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Craig v. HarrahNevada Supreme Court · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API