Court Opinion

ID: 9625077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:27:16.177567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:00.379342
License: Public Domain

Merrill, C. J.,
concurring:
I concur, but under the circumstances of this case, feel that an apologetic footnote might well be added.
In the light of the explanatory note to Rule 4 (a) N.R. C.P., that rule would seem to me to be wholly inconsistent with Woodstock v. Whitaker, appearing to provide that delivery to an attorney for a party may constitute effective “delivery for service.” It may, then, be contended that we are saying to those who attempt to follow our Rules of Civil Procedure, “Do not do what we say. Rather, do what we meant to say.” It may be a pertinent inquiry whether we have not, through our Rules of Civil Procedure, laid a trap for the trusting attorney.
However, should such an attorney do what we “say” (that is follow N.R.C.P. without regard to the explanatory notes) he would not be misled. Rule 3 must still be read in the light of Woodstock v. Whitaker. Rule 4(a) would not necessarily be inconsistent. It is only when one turns to the notes that the inconsistency of Rule 4(a) with Woodstock v. Whitaker becomes apparent. However, those very notes demonstrate clearly the intent that Woodstock v. Whitaker — “the present Nevada rule” —be continued in effect.
Rule 4 (a) it is true in the light of the notes is unfortunately expressed with resultant confusion and inconsistency but it can hardly in good sense be construed to repeal the very rule which so clearly we intended to preserve.
Failure to comply with the rule of Woodstock v. Whitaker cannot, then, be attributed to the language in which Rule 4(a) or its explanatory note is expressed. It can only be attributed to unawareness that the rule of that case was the present Nevada rule.
We cannot, of course, condone a disregard of our case *323law nor be persuaded into a change of rule solely through sympathy with those who may have overlooked it in a particular case. Moreover, I feel it doubtful that change of rule should be by court decision where such rule has expressly or by clear implication found its way into N.R.C.P. and modification with notice is available by the method we have there prescribed.