From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State of Rhode Island v. Prins

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jun 30, 1980
96 Nev. 565 (Nev. 1980)

Summary

explaining that this court may treat a respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error

Summary of this case from Pac. Coast Steel v. State

Opinion

No. 12359

June 30, 1980

Appeal from judgment of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Paul S. Goldman, Judge.

Robert J. Miller, District Attorney, and John B. Squires, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellants.

Archie Heggie for Respondent.

Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General and Nancy Ford Angres, Deputy Attorney General, amici curiae, urging reversal.


OPINION


This is an appeal by the State of Rhode Island from a judgment that respondent owed no duty of support to his child.

Despite an extension of time to file respondent's answering brief, no such brief has been filed. The brief is now more than two months overdue. See NRAP 31(a). Appellant has moved this court to treat respondent's failure to timely file his brief as a confession of error, to reverse and to remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine a reasonable order for support retroactive to July 12, 1979, to continue until the child is emancipated or reaches the age of majority.

This court may, in its discretion, treat the failure of a respondent to file his brief as a confession of error, and reverse the judgment without consideration of the merits of the appeal. NRAP 31(c); Kitchen Factors, Inc. v. Brown, 91 Nev. 308, 535 P.2d 677 (1975); Toiyabe Supply Co. v. Arcade, 74 Nev. 314, 330 P.2d 121 (1958).

In our view, this is an appropriate case for such disposition. The judgment in respondent's favor is reversed and remanded with instructions to determine a reasonable order for support retroactive to July 12, 1979, to continue until the child is emancipated or reaches the age of majority.


Summaries of

State of Rhode Island v. Prins

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jun 30, 1980
96 Nev. 565 (Nev. 1980)

explaining that this court may treat a respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error

Summary of this case from Pac. Coast Steel v. State

explaining that this court may treat a respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error

Summary of this case from City of Wells v. Combrink

explaining that this court may treat a respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error

Summary of this case from Thomason v. Rojas-Lopez

In Prins, the respondent was represented by counsel; a request for an extension of time in which to prepare a brief was made and granted.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Welfare Div. v. Hudson

explaining that the appellate courts may treat a respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error

Summary of this case from Holmes v. Serrano

explaining that this court may treat a respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error

Summary of this case from Nev. Trading Co. v. Karpel
Case details for

State of Rhode Island v. Prins

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, MARGUERITE PRINS, APPELLANTS, v. JOHN PRINS…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Jun 30, 1980

Citations

96 Nev. 565 (Nev. 1980)
613 P.2d 408

Citing Cases

Tran v. Vargas

Appellate courts "may, in [their] discretion, treat the failure of a respondent to file his brief as a…

Thomason v. Rojas-Lopez

Having considered the motion, and based on respondents' failure both to file an answering brief and to oppose…