Court Opinion

ID: 9853344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:46:54.580728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:46.058186
License: Public Domain

Batjer, C. J.,
dissenting:
Although I agree that a proceeding in mandamus will lie to review an order denying summary judgment, I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority opinion. Three critical points of time are here involved. The first, December 12, 1968, the day of the negligent act, when the errant decree was allowed to be entered. The next was shortly thereafter when Thomas N. Griswold received a copy of the decree, discovered the error and brought it to petitioner’s attention; and the third was December 13, 1969, the day after Griswold’s obligation to pay $3,600 in alimony terminated and the damage commenced.
When the resulting injury occurred on December 13, 1969, the statute of limitation commenced to run and the action by Griswold against the petitioner, filed on May 20, 1976, should be necessarily barred. NRS 11.190(2)(c). Denzer v. Rouse, 180 N.W.2d 521 (Wis. 1970).