FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION

Cite as Kosrae v. Langu, 16 FSM Intrm. 172 (App. 2008)

[16 FSM Intrm 172]

STATE OF KOSRAE,

Appellant,

vs.

LIPAR J. LANGU,

Appellee.

APPEAL CASE NO. K5-2008

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

Decided: October 13, 2008

BEFORE:

Hon. Andon L. Amaraich, Chief Justice, FSM Supreme Court

Hon. Martin G. Yinug, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court

Hon. Ready E. Johnny, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
 

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant:          Snyder H. Simon, Esq.

                                      Assistant Attorney General

                                      Office of the Kosrae Attorney General

                                      P.O. Box 870

                                      Tofol, Kosrae FM 96944

* * * *

[16 FSM Intrm 173]

 

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review — Rehearing

    A motion to reconsider filed after a panel has disposed of the appeal is considered to be a petition for rehearing. Kosrae v. Langu, 16 FSM Intrm. 172, 173 (App. 2008).

Appellate Review ) Rehearing

    A petition for rehearing can be granted only if the court has overlooked or misapprehended a point of law or fact. Kosrae v. Langu, 16 FSM Intrm. 172, 173 (App. 2008).

Appellate Review ) Rehearing

    When the petitioner has raised no argument that the court has not already considered and rejected, the court will conclude that it has not overlooked or misapprehended a point of law and rehearing will be denied. Kosrae v. Langu, 16 FSM Intrm. 172, 173 (App. 2008).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

PER CURIAM:

    On September 2, 2008, the court dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. [Kosrae v. Langu, 16 FSM Intrm. 83, 88 (App. 2008).] On September 16, 2008, the appellant, State of Kosrae, filed a Motion to Reconsider Order of Dismissal and Response to Motion for Dismissal of Appeal. Kosrae asks the court to permit it to respond to the appellee’s motion to dismiss even though the time, as extended, has passed for it to respond because it received the order enlarging time for it to respond after the enlarged deadline; asks the court to consider its arguments on the jurisdiction issue; and asks that the court hold that the statute grants the court jurisdiction over this appeal and thereby reinstate the appeal.

    A motion to reconsider filed after a panel has disposed of the appeal is considered to be a petition for rehearing. See Jano v. FSM, 12 FSM Intrm. 633, 634 (App. 2004). A petition for rehearing can be granted only if the court has overlooked or misapprehended a point of law or fact. FSM v. Udot Municipality, 12 FSM Intrm. 622, 624 (App. 2004). Kosrae contends that the court has misapprehended a point of law concerning jurisdiction. It contends that Kosrae Code section 6.403(3) grants the court jurisdiction over its appeal.

    In our September 2, 2008 dismissal order, we considered whether this statute conferred jurisdiction upon us for this appeal. We determined that it did not.

    When the petitioner has raised no argument that the court has not already considered and rejected, the court will conclude that it has not overlooked or misapprehended a point of law and rehearing will be denied. Goya v. Ramp, 14 FSM Intrm. 305, 308 (App. 2006). Accordingly, although Kosrae’s tardy receipt of the order enlarging time is disturbing, the State of Kosrae’s motion for reconsideration or petition for rehearing is denied.

* * * *