Camp (Kevin) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Camp (Kevin) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJune 17, 2016

Docket70207

StatusUnpublished

This text of Camp (Kevin) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Camp (Kevin) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) 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.

Bluebook

Camp (Kevin) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KEVIN L. CAMP, No. 70207 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 7 2016 MICHELLE LEAVITT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus' asks this court to order the district court to set bail in an amount not to exceed $300,000. "A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and therefore, the decision to entertain the petition lies within our discretion. Such a writ is available only to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station." Winkle v. Foster, 127 Nev. 488, 490-91, 269 P.3d 898, 899 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "[It] will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (internal citation

'Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition. Because petitioner does not contend that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition is not appropriate. See NRS 34.320.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A )4IE11. -Re omitted); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. See Nev. Const. art. 1, § 7 (stating that bail may be restricted for defendants charged with murder) see also NRS 178.498 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail); NRS 178.4853 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Hofland & Tomsheck Kuzemka Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KEVIN L. CAMP, No. 70207 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 7 2016 MICHELLE LEAVITT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus' asks this court to order the district court to set bail in an amount not to exceed $300,000. "A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and therefore, the decision to entertain the petition lies within our discretion. Such a writ is available only to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station." Winkle v. Foster, 127 Nev. 488, 490-91, 269 P.3d 898, 899 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "[It] will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (internal citation

'Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition. Because petitioner does not contend that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition is not appropriate. See NRS 34.320.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A )4IE11. -Re omitted); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. See Nev. Const. art. 1, § 7 (stating that bail may be restricted for defendants charged with murder) see also NRS 178.498 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail); NRS 178.4853 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Hofland & Tomsheck Kuzemka Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Camp (Kevin) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camp-kevin-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack