InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

GUNSMOKE

03/10/22 4:28 PM

#17896 RE: RDY2ROCK #17894

its over get over-it already ... geees
icon url

KRS2

03/10/22 4:36 PM

#17901 RE: RDY2ROCK #17894

Thanks for pointing out R2R. I didn't notice..just sitting tight.
icon url

LionCub1

03/10/22 4:39 PM

#17905 RE: RDY2ROCK #17894

Thanks for your post. I'm checking it out now.
icon url

CyberC

03/11/22 12:24 AM

#17943 RE: RDY2ROCK #17894

Inquiring minds would like to know. I wonder if after review of the previous rulings if the judge changed his mind and denied Hovendick's request. If so, we should see an update to the court's site tomorrow. Judges do not like to be mislead.
icon url

Squirrely_McShitty

03/11/22 4:47 AM

#17947 RE: RDY2ROCK #17894

The case you referenced - A-21-835979-C - is the case that was brought by Alpharidge to end the conservatorship. It was decided on 3/2/22

The case Hovendick brought that had a hearing on 3/8/22 - case number A-21-844867-C - was brought by Hovendick against Alpharidge.

The case on the 8th (A-21-844867) was listed on the docket of the wrong case (A-21-835979-C). Two different cases. Two different judges. Two different issues.

My guess is just standard record keeping. They removed the case from the docket where it didn't belong.

If the judge reconsidered (VERY unlikely, unfortunately), he would do so before both parties council, not secretly in chambers.