Court Opinion

ID: 9629390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:42:00.898367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:14.539341
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
concurring:
I agree that the district court should be prohibited from considering the untimely written water rights exceptions filed by Stanley E. Bailey and Justin W. Livingston on July 10, 1978. Carpenter v. District Court, 59 Nev. 42, 73 P.2d 1310 (1937). This opinion should not be construed as prohibiting the district judge from taking testimony pursuant to NRS 533.170(3).1 The latitude of that subsection is not now before us. Carpenter v. District Court, supra (on rehearing).2

 NRS 533.170(3) provides:
“If no exceptions shall have been filed with the clerk of the court as provided in subsection 1, then on the day set for hearing the court may take further testimony if deemed proper, and shall then enter its findings of fact and judgment and decree.”

 On rehearing this Court in Carpenter seems to have made an attempt to limit the latitude of (sec. 7922 N.C.L.), now NRS 533.170(3).