From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahaffey v. Investor's Nat'l Security

Supreme Court of Nevada
Oct 8, 1986
102 Nev. 462 (Nev. 1986)

Summary

concluding that "a timely notice of [appeal] is mandatory and jurisdictional"

Summary of this case from Kille v. Poag

Opinion

No. 17143

October 8, 1986

Motion to dismiss cross-appeal. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Myron E. Leavitt, J.

Peter L. Flangas, Las Vegas, for Appellants and Cross-Respondents.

Jolley, Urga, Wirth and Woodbury, Las Vegas, for Respondents and Cross-Appellants.


OPINION


This is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court entered on November 19, 1985. Respondents served appellants by mail with written notice of entry of the judgment on November 21, 1985. On December 20, 1985, appellants filed a timely notice of appeal. Respondents filed a notice of cross-appeal on January 6, 1986. It is apparent that respondents' notice of cross-appeal was not timely.

By alternative methods of counting, respondents conclude that their notice of cross-appeal was timely. These methods of counting ignore the express terms of NRAP 26(a). Respondents' attorney was personally served with a copy of appellants' notice of appeal on December 20, 1985. Therefore, respondents' notice of cross-appeal was due on January 3, 1986. See NRAP 4(a); NRAP 26(a).

Appellants have moved to dismiss respondents' cross-appeal on the grounds that respondents' notice of cross-appeal was untimely. Appellants contend that a timely notice of cross-appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. We agree.

Although this court has not directly addressed the issue of whether a timely notice of cross-appeal is jurisdictional, we have clearly held that a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Zugel v. Miller, 99 Nev. 100, 659 P.2d 296 (1983).

Respondents contend, however, that federal courts have determined that a timely notice of cross-appeal is merely a proper procedure, rather than a mandatory jurisdictional rule. See Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981); Scott v. University of Delaware, 601 F.2d 76, 83 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 931 (1979); Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 126 n. 12 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864 (1975). We note, however, that equally persuasive federal authority supports our conclusion that a timely notice of cross-appeal is jurisdictional. See Savage v. Cache Valley Dairy Ass'n, 737 F.2d 887, 889 (10th Cir. 1984); Martin v. Hamil, 608 F.2d 725, 731 (7th Cir. 1979); Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company v. Kallen, 376 F.2d 360, 364 (6th Cir. 1967).

Appellants argue that the federal cases are not probative because the federal rules of appellate procedure differ significantly from the Nevada rules. Specifically, appellants note that the time for filing a notice of appeal to a federal circuit court of appeals may be extended for good cause shown. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). While it is true the time period may be extended for a period of ten (10) days, the period may be extended only pursuant to a timely motion filed not later than thirty (30) days after the expiration of the time prescribed for commencing an appeal. Further, a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional in the federal courts, see Browder v. Director, Ill. Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978), and the time for filing a notice of appeal cannot be enlarged by a federal court except as specifically authorized by law. See Fed.R.App. P. 26(b). Therefore, the federal rules do not differ significantly from the Nevada rules.

NRAP 3(a) provides that an appeal "shall be taken by filing a [timely] notice of appeal . . ." and that "[f]ailure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal . . . ." (Emphasis added.) NRAP 4(a) provides that "[i]f a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file and serve a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Finally, NRAP 26(b) provides that "the court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal." These rules establish that every appeal, including a cross-appeal, must be commenced by the filing of a timely notice of appeal. In addition, we note that, pursuant to NRAP 28(h), in the case of multiple appeals, the plaintiff below is designated appellant, whether or not he filed the first notice of appeal (unless otherwise agreed by the parties or directed by the court). It therefore makes little sense to determine that a first notice of appeal is jurisdictional, but that subsequent notices of appeal need not be timely. We conclude that a timely notice of cross-appeal is jurisdictional with respect to the cross-appeal. See 9 J. Moore, B. Ward J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 204.11[5] at 4-62 n. 18 (2d ed. 1985).

We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and we conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, because respondents failed to file a timely notice of cross-appeal, we grant appellants' motion and we dismiss respondents' cross-appeal.

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. MOWBRAY, Chief Justice, voluntarily recused himself from consideration of this case and did not participate in the disposition of this motion.

SPRINGER, A.C.J., and GUNDERSON, STEFFEN, and YOUNG, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mahaffey v. Investor's Nat'l Security

Supreme Court of Nevada
Oct 8, 1986
102 Nev. 462 (Nev. 1986)

concluding that "a timely notice of [appeal] is mandatory and jurisdictional"

Summary of this case from Kille v. Poag

concluding that "a timely notice of [appeal] is mandatory and jurisdictional"

Summary of this case from Golden Gaming, Inc. v. Corrigan Mgmt., Inc.

concluding that notice of cross-appeal not timely because it was filed more than 14 days after notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Wynn Las Vegas, LLC v. Tofani

noting “that every appeal, including a cross-appeal, must be commenced by the filing of a timely notice of appeal”

Summary of this case from Cashman Equip. Co. v. W. Edna Assocs., Ltd.
Case details for

Mahaffey v. Investor's Nat'l Security

Case Details

Full title:WARREN STUART MAHAFFEY AND KRISTINA MAHAFFEY, APPELLANTS AND…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Oct 8, 1986

Citations

102 Nev. 462 (Nev. 1986)
725 P.2d 1218

Citing Cases

University of Nevada v. Tarkanian

UNLV contends that "under well-settled principals of appellate procedure," reversal or modification of a…

Wynn Las Vegas, LLC v. Tofani

Tofani's notice was filed within 14 days of Wynn's notice of appeal, and thus, is timely. See NRAP 4(a)(2);…