Archon Gaming Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Admin.)
This text of Archon Gaming Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Admin.) (Archon Gaming Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Admin.)) 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
ARCHON GAMING CORPORATION, No. 71390 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND FILED THE HONORABLE JAMES CROCKETT, NOV 1 8 2016 DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION APPEALS OFFICE, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA; SIERRA NEVADA ADMINISTRATORS; AND JAMES KELLY, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT RELIEF This original petition for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition challenges a district court order directing the production of documents and the district court's continuing exercise of jurisdiction over the underlying petition for judicial review. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). In particular, although petitioner asks this court to order the district court to statistically close the underlying matter, it does not appear that petitioner has formally filed a motion in district court asking for that relief. In the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A tea absence of formal motion practice and a decision from the district court thereon, we are unable to meaningfully review the jurisdictional issues presented in this writ petition. Accordingly, we decline at this time to consider the jurisdictional issues. Because the issue regarding copy costs appears to be somewhat intertwined with the jurisdictional issues, we likewise decline at this time to consider that issue. We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.
CAA a-5LO , C.J. Parraguirre
J. Hardesty
J. Pickering
cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Alan R. Johns Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cep
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Archon Gaming Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Admin.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archon-gaming-corp-v-dist-ct-state-dept-of-admin-nev-2016.