Berman v Pohnpei State Government [2011] FMSC 16; 17 FSM Intrm. 464 (App. 2011) (24 March 2011)

FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION

APPEAL CASE NO. P5-2009
(Civil Action No. 2008-025)

MARY BERMAN,
Appellant,

vs.

POHNPEI STATE GOVERNMENT,
Appellee.
__________________________________________

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Decided: March 24, 2011

BEFORE:

Hon. Martin G. Yinug, Acting Chief Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Dennis K. Yamase, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Ready E. Johnny, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant:

Mary Berman, Esq. P.O. Box 163 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review - Rehearing
The appellate court will not, on a petition for rehearing, "correct" a factual finding when it made no findings of fact; when the fact objected to is a statement that was the facts as found by the trial court; and when that remained the facts on appeal as the events that occurred that led to the appellant's arrest even though the Pohnpei police station's booking sheet differs from those facts in some respects as to the charges for which she was booked. Berman v. Pohnpei, [2011] FMSC 16; 17 FSM Intrm. 464, 465 (App. 2011).

Appellate Review - Rehearing
Rehearing will be denied when, even if the court had misapprehended a certain fact, the result in the case would not change. Berman v. Pohnpei, [2011] FMSC 16; 17 FSM Intrm. 464, 465 (App. 2011).

Appellate Review - Rehearing
When the appellate court has neither overlooked nor misapprehended any material points of law or fact, it may summarily deny a petition for rehearing. Berman v. Pohnpei, [2011] FMSC 16; 17 FSM Intrm. 464, 465 (App. 2011).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On March 4, 2011, appellant Mary Berman timely filed her petition for rehearing. She seeks our review of what she contends are three errors in our February 18, 2011 Opinion.

Two of Berman's alleged errors are points of law. After careful review, we determine that we neither overlooked nor misapprehended any relevant law and we further note that, although termed "disingenuous" by Berman, these are points that only her husband, not Berman, would have had standing to raise.

The third error, which Berman asks us to correct, is a factual finding. We made no findings of fact. The fact she objects to is our statement that "Sergeant Iriarte, who after his arrival was the officer in charge, arrested Berman for obstruction of justice and for pushing Iriarte in the chest." Berman v. Pohnpei, [2011] FMSC 6; 17 FSM Intrm. 360, 369 (App. 2011). These were the facts found by the trial court: "Berman was arrested by Sergeant Iriarte for obstruction of justice and for pushing Iriarte in the chest." Berman v. Pohnpei, [2009] FMSC 39; 16 FSM Intrm. 567, 571 (Pon. 2009). They remained the facts on appeal as the events that occurred that led to Berman's arrest. We did not overlook that the Pohnpei police station's booking sheet differs from those facts in some respects as to the charges for which she was booked. That, however, would have no effect on this appeal's outcome. Rehearing will be denied when, even if the court had misapprehended a certain fact, the result in the case would not change. Goya v. Ramp, [2006] FMSC 42; 14 FSM Intrm. 305, 307 (App. 2006).

Accordingly, since we neither overlooked nor misapprehended any material points of law or fact, we summarily deny Berman's petition for rehearing. Nena v. Kosrae (II), [1994] FMSC 18; 6 FSM Intrm. 437, 438 (App. 1994). The mandate will issue in seven days. FSM App. R. 41.

* * * *