- 5 -
In his February 2005 status report, respondent stated that
(1) he had forwarded to petitioner copies of petitioner’s
transcripts of accounts which addressed the four issues as
outlined in the mandate of the Court of Appeals, (2) he had asked
petitioner to contact him as soon as possible to discuss the
same, (3) petitioner had not contacted respondent, and (4)
respondent was preparing computations pursuant to Rule 155 for
petitioner to review.
In his February 2005 status report, petitioner (1) alleged
that inappropriate ex parte communications had taken place
between the Court and respondent, (2) complained about the date
petitioner’s November 2004 status report was filed, (3) alleged
that the Court of Appeals made conclusions regarding the four
issues outlined in its mandate rather than remanding the four
issues for further proceedings, and (4) stated that he received
on February 4, 2005, copies of his transcripts of accounts that
respondent had forwarded to him.
Despite being ordered by the Court twice to advise the Court
of their positions regarding the appropriate means for this Court
to implement the mandate of the Court of Appeals, neither party
advised the Court what further proceedings he believed were
necessary to implement the mandate of the Court of Appeals.
From the submitted status reports, it appeared to the Court
that in order to implement the mandate of the Court of Appeals a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011