Laserfiche WebLink
49 P.3d 382, 389 (2002). The term'Swnc pro tunc signifies or means'now for then'or that a thing <br /> is done now that shall have the same legal force and effect as if done at the time it ought to have <br /> been done" Id. The doctrine applies'lw]here through no fault of the complaining party some act <br /> which the court must perform is not done at the time it ought to be done,the court, in the interest <br /> of justice, may and should presently do or perform that act as of the date it should <br /> have been done" Id. (citing Makainai v. Lalakea, 24 Haw. 518, 522 (1918)). "The order nunc pro <br /> tunc may be supported by the judge's notes, court files, or other entries of record'or it may be <br /> based upon"other evidence, oral or written, which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the order is <br /> required to make the record reflect the truth" Fisher v. Minor, 66 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Neb. 1954). <br /> In the case at hand, the circuit court found that but for the"omission or unintended act'by <br /> the court's clerk not file-stamping the Notice of Appeal within two days of receiving it, the <br /> Notice of Appeal would have been timely filed. (SR: CV07-1-261K T001 at 20.) Because of the <br /> omission of the court's clerk, the circuit court exercised it inherent power to correct the record to <br /> show that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed. (SR: CV07-1-261K T001 at 20.) Such action <br /> was supported by the courts files containing the Notice of Appeal reflecting the date it was <br /> received by the clerk as November 19, 2007 and the file-stamp date of November 23, 2007. <br /> (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 011 at 766, 797.) Therefore, the circuit court properly exercised its <br /> inherent power to correct the record to show that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed. <br /> Although Appellants Jin and Lu do not dispute that the deadline for filing the Notice <br /> of Appeal in Circuit Court was November 21, 2007, they still contend that even though the <br /> Notice of Appeal was received by the clerks office on November 19, 2007, it was not filed <br /> within the November 21, 2007 deadline because it was not actually file-stamped by the clerk <br /> until November 23, 2007. The cases cited by Appellants Jin and Lu to support such a contention <br /> 18 <br />