From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colton v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Nevada
Feb 16, 1955
71 Nev. 71 (Nev. 1955)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Young v. State
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 3805

February 16, 1955.

Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ryland G. Taylor, J.

Harry E. Claiborne, of Las Vegas, for Appellants.

Jones and Pursel, of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an action brought by respondents to quiet title to mining property located in Clark County. Judgment on the pleadings was entered by the trial court in favor of respondents based upon the court's decision that appellants had failed properly to create any issue as to their adverse claim. Without seeking amendment of their pleadings in the trial court, this appeal from judgment has been taken by appellants.

Before this court, opening and answering briefs having been filed, appellants neglected to file any reply brief. After 72 days had passed respondents moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it had been abandoned. This motion we denied, deferring until final submission of the appeal any examination of the issues presented by the briefs. Appellants were regarded as having waived right to file a written reply and the matter was thereupon set for oral argument. Counsel have now waived oral argument and stipulated that the matter be submitted upon the opening and answering briefs.

In justification of the action of the trial court, the contentions of respondents as expressed in answering brief appear to have merit and to be supported by authority. Such contentions and supporting authority in substantial part were not anticipated in appellants' opening brief and now stand unchallenged. Under the circumstances such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position.

Upon the briefs of counsel, then, no material controversy upon the law has been presented for us to resolve and we shall not conduct an independent search to determine whether, upon any point of law, respondents' position might validly have been disputed by appellants.

Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents.

Summaries of

Colton v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Nevada
Feb 16, 1955
71 Nev. 71 (Nev. 1955)

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Young v. State

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Sweet v. Hisgen (In re Sweet)

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Tobin v. Chiesi

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Cunningham v. State

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge . . . constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Honeyestewa v. State

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Saticoy Bay Series 4641 Viareggio CT. v. Nationstar Mortg.

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Smart v. State

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Robinson v. State

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Swain v. Gafford

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, 'such lack of challenge . . . constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Richards v. State

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from TRP Fund IV, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge . . . constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Harris v. State

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Puckett v. Ir. Bank

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from LN Mgmt. LLC v. Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge ... constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Houston v. State

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from USROF III Legal Title Tr. 2015-1 v. Rental

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from JJND Enters., LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.

concluding that when respondents’ argument was not addressed in appellants’ opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents’ position"

Summary of this case from Droge v. AAAA Two Star Towing, Inc.

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Zixiao Chen v. Nationstar Mortg.

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Oswalt v. Hall

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Trice v. Huynh

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Rutherford v. U.S. Bank

concluding that when respondents' argument had merit and was not addressed in either appellants' opening or reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Sorenson v. Radel-Sorenson

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellants' opening brief, and appellants declined to address the argument in a reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Castl v. Pennymac Holdings, LLC

concluding that when respondents' argument was not addressed in appellant's opening brief, and appellant also declined to address the argument in the reply brief, "such lack of challenge cannot be regarded as unwitting and in our view constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents' position"

Summary of this case from Arcenas v. MortgageIT, Inc.
Case details for

Colton v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:R. FRED COLTON, GEORGE RAYMOND COLTON, JR., AND GORDON COLTON, APPELLANTS…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Feb 16, 1955

Citations

71 Nev. 71 (Nev. 1955)
279 P.2d 1036

Citing Cases

Zandian v. Margolin

And here, Margolin's right to execute on his default judgment arises from the default judgment itself, not…

Young v. State

We note that Young declined to file a reply brief and therefore we can conclude that he has conceded that…

46 Citing Cases