This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the three-day requirement is not a hard and fast rule.[31] Where a party has been given an opportunity to be heard, the time to study the motion and oppose it, there is compliance with the rule.[32] The test is the presence of the opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based.[33] | |||||