Accomando v. Accomando
This text of Accomando v. Accomando (Accomando v. Accomando) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MARIO ACCOMANDO, No. 84097 Appellant, vS. GEORGANN ROSE ACCOMANDO, Respondent. FILED FEB 1 1 2022 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT By "5 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL DEPUTY CLERK
This is a pro se appeal from a purported district court order entered on October 15, 2021. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Amy Mastin, Judge. Review of the notice of appeal and other documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. No district court order was entered on October 15, 2021. To the extent appellant is attempting to appeal from the cancellation of a hearing on his motion to determine respondent's mental health, such a cancellation is not appealable. See Brown v. WIC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court „ may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). Accordingly, this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
Stiglich Herndon SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I 947A 407.4P4.- - ozI613 cc: Hon. Amy Mastin, District Judge, Family Court Division Mario Accomando Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC. Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A cOatt,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Accomando v. Accomando, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/accomando-v-accomando-nev-2022.