Deponte v. Ulupalakua Ranch, Ltd.

On August 31, 1964, plaintiff-appellee filed a petition for rehearing, asserting that the court erred “in holding that the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted because the motion for directed verdict did not specify the grounds thereof, and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must stand or fall with the motion for directed verdict.” On September 2, 1964, the court requested a reply from defendant-appellant under our Eule 5(b).

We note preliminarily that plaintiff-appellee’s above quoted assertion is an incorrect paraphrase couched in language…