Court Opinion

ID: 9695476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:20:36.135796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.107113
License: Public Domain

Murphy, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result.
ON PETITION FOR REARGUMENT.
On May 21, 1965, the following opinion was filed:
Per Curiam.
It appears from plaintiff’s petition that during the pendency of the appeal and upon the hearing for the issuance of the writ of prohibition, plaintiff’s counsel made an oral, informal request to remand for the purpose of permitting the trial court to amend its order, but that such request was not acted upon nor further pursued. Defendant does not *487deny that this request was made. Plaintiff by his petition requests a declaration of the status of his motion for a new trial.
Since we held the order to be a nullity, the motion has not been decided and must, therefore, be considered pending before the trial court for such disposition as the court deems proper.
Petition for reargument denied.