Court Opinion

ID: 9551779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:59:01.591498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:35.948113
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In its petition for rehearing, Nordin asserts that it was denied the opportunity of filing a reply brief and presenting oral argument in case number 1520. It also argues that the issue of unjust enrichment was not raised on appeal in case number 1290; for this reason it is claimed that we erred in discussing this issue in the opinion filed in this case.
The record discloses that case 1520 was consolidated with cases 1290 and 1299 for opinion by an order which we entered on June 24, 1971. This order, dated some three and one-half months after oral argument, was entered at the request of Nor-din. The order specifically provided that no further oral argument would be heard by us. Nordin’s arguments in case 1520 were fully considered in reaching our decision, for we had a separate record prepared in case 1520 which consisted of a transcript of all oral arguments and all written papers presented to the trial court. Additionally, we considered Nordin’s and the City of Nome’s briefs. These did not depart from the position taken in the trial court by each party.
In case number 1290 the record and briefs disclose that the issue of unjust enrichment was raised in the statement of points on appeal and in the briefs of Nor-din and the City of Nome. The issue of unjust enrichment as a basis for reversal was raised at page 55 of Nordin’s brief. This argument was answered by the City of Nome on pages 25-30 of its brief, and was treated further in the reply brief of Nordin on pages 8-11.
It is hereby ordered that the Petition for Rehearing is denied.