8 FSM Intrm. 070-071

FSM SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION

Cite as Damarlane v. United States,

8 FSM Intrm. 70 (App. 1997)

[8 FSM Intrm. 70]

IGNACIA DAMARLANE et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.

Appellees.

APPEAL CASE NO. P1-1996

ORDER

Rehearing Denied: May 17, 1997

BEFORE:

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

Hon. Martin Yinug, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court

Hon. Ramon G. Villagomez, Temporary Justice, FSM Supreme Court*

*Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Saipan, CNMI

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellants: Mary Berman, Esq.

P.O. Box 163

Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Appeal and Certiorari ) Rehearing

There is no basis to grant a petition for rehearing when it does not make any argument or raise any issue not previously considered, and the petitioners had ample time to address those arguments during the pendency of the action. Damarlane v. United States, 8 FSM Intrm. 70, 71 (App. 1997).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On April 15, 1997, this court entered a decision in the above matter which affirmed all decisions of the trial court in all respects. On April 29, 1997, appellants filed a petition for rehearing. Appellants argue that the appellate court committed clear error in upholding the decision of the trial court to dissolve the dredging injunction; the decision that plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties; the decision that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for injury to riparian rights; the decision that defendants

[ 8 FSM Intrm. 71]

were entitled to costs; and the decision to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the United States and that judgment in favor of the United States must stand. Appellants also argue that the appellate court erred in upholding the trial court's decision in that it was based upon the Pohnpei Supreme Court appellate decision.

Discussion

Rule 40 of the FSM Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in pertinent part: "A petition for rehearing . . . shall state with particularity the points of law or fact which in the opinion of the petitioner the court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the petition as the petitioner desires to present."

Appellants' petition states with particularity those points of law or fact which appellants believe the court has overlooked or misapprehended. However, appellants do not make any argument, cite to any rule, or raise any issue not previously considered by the court. In fact, much of the petition for rehearing is a reiteration of previous arguments. The court is of the opinion that appellants have had, during the pendency of this action, ample time in which to address the arguments raised in the petition for rehearing. The court will not at this point entertain further argument on the same issues. Therefore, the court finds no basis upon which to grant rehearing.

Appellants' petition for rehearing is hereby denied.

* * * *


	FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION Cite as Damarlane v. United States, 8 FSM Intrm. 70 (App. 1997) [8 FSM Intrm. 70] IGNACIA DAMARLANE et al., Appellants, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. Appellees. APPEAL CASE NO. P1-1996 ORDER Rehearing Denied: May 17, 1997 BEFORE: Hon. Andon L. Amaraich, Chief Justice, FSM Supreme Court Hon. Martin Yinug, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court Hon. Ramon G. Villagomez, Temporary Justice, FSM Supreme Court* Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Saipan, CNMI APPEARANCE:* For the Appellants: Mary Berman, Esq. P.O. Box 163 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941 * * * * HEADNOTE Appeal and Certiorari ) Rehearing There is no basis to grant a petition for rehearing when it does not make any argument or raise any issue not previously considered, and the petitioners had ample time to address those arguments during the pendency of the action. Damarlane v. United States, 8 FSM Intrm. 70, 71 (App. 1997). * * * * COURT'S OPINION PER CURIAM: On April 15, 1997, this court entered a decision in the above matter which affirmed all decisions of the trial court in all respects. On April 29, 1997, appellants filed a petition for rehearing. Appellants argue that the appellate court committed clear error in upholding the decision of the trial court to dissolve the dredging injunction; the decision that plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties; the decision that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for injury to riparian rights; the decision that defendants [ 8 FSM Intrm. 71] were entitled to costs; and the decision to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the United States and that judgment in favor of the United States must stand. Appellants also argue that the appellate court erred in upholding the trial court's decision in that it was based upon the Pohnpei Supreme Court appellate decision. Discussion Rule 40 of the FSM Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in pertinent part: "A petition for rehearing . . . shall state with particularity the points of law or fact which in the opinion of the petitioner the court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the petition as the petitioner desires to present." Appellants' petition states with particularity those points of law or fact which appellants believe the court has overlooked or misapprehended. However, appellants do not make any argument, cite to any rule, or raise any issue not previously considered by the court. In fact, much of the petition for rehearing is a reiteration of previous arguments. The court is of the opinion that appellants have had, during the pendency of this action, ample time in which to address the arguments raised in the petition for rehearing. The court will not at this point entertain further argument on the same issues. Therefore, the court finds no basis upon which to grant rehearing. Appellants' petition for rehearing is hereby denied. * * * *