Court Opinion

ID: 9559168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:23:56.052365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:53.793374
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, C. J.,
concurring:
I concur generally in the views expressed by Justice Thompson, but feel a brief further comment is warranted.
In granting fees in excess of the limits legislatively fixed, the court did not act “of course,” but entertained “special motions” as to which notice and hearing was requisite. See, for example, Maheu v. District Court, 88 Nev. 26, 493 P.2d 709 (1972), and authorities cited therein. Thus, the orders granting fees in excess of those that the statute routinely authorizes were void.
If the Comptroller had been afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, and if the record reflected a case of truly extraordinary proportions or complexity, making fees in excess of the statutory amount clearly necessary in order to avoid inordinate hardship upon counsel, then an award in excess of the statutory limit would be proper.