- 10 -
1989, and (b) petitioner’s June 21, 1994, payment of $6,681.22;
and (5) how respondent computed the interest for the years in
issue.
Furthermore, the Court ordered the case set for further
trial at a special session of the Court that was to commence on
January 26, 2006, and advised the parties that the Court would
not be inclined to grant any continuances in this case.
Additionally, the Court ordered the parties to identify the parts
of the record (transcripts, stipulations of fact, and documents)
that previously had been marked as part of the record in this
case and that the parties would like to be considered during
remand proceedings. The Court also ordered that the evidence and
argument presented in all subsequent filings with the Court and
at the trial that was to be held during the January 26, 2006,
special session should be confined to the four issues as outlined
in the mandate of the Court of Appeals.
On December 6, 2005, despite the Court’s statement in the
November 7, 2005, order that we would not be inclined to grant
any continuances in this case, respondent filed a motion for
continuance of trial.
On January 5, 2006, after giving petitioner the opportunity
to file an objection (which he filed on January 3, 2006), we
denied respondent’s motion for continuance of trial.
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