Carr Vs. Dist. Ct. (Carr)

Nevada Supreme Court

Carr Vs. Dist. Ct. (Carr)

DecidedJuly 7, 2021

Docket83089

StatusPublished

This text of Carr Vs. Dist. Ct. (Carr) (Carr Vs. Dist. Ct. (Carr)) 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

Carr Vs. Dist. Ct. (Carr), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THOMAS ALAN CARR, No. 83089 Petitioner, vs. THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LYON; FILED AND THE HONORABLE LEON JUL r' 7 2021 ABERASTURI, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABE hi A. noviN Respondents, CLER PREME COURT

and BY EPUI Y CLERK LEANDRA CARR, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges district court rulings in a child custody proceeding. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because an appeal from an adverse ruling below constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that (1) extraordinary relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate rernedy at law; (2) an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief; and (3) petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Further, to the extent petitioner seeks modification of the district court's custody determinations, such a motion should be directed to and resolved by the district court in the first instance so that the factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. hnp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of facr and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "important public interests are involved"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Hardesty

e"gitr Parraguirre - Cadish c4/4, , J.

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge Thomas Alan Carr Law Offices of Andriea A. Aden, Esq., Chtd. Third District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

to) twTA OW*, 2

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

THOMAS ALAN CARR, No. 83089 Petitioner, vs. THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LYON; FILED AND THE HONORABLE LEON JUL r' 7 2021 ABERASTURI, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABE hi A. noviN Respondents, CLER PREME COURT

and BY EPUI Y CLERK LEANDRA CARR, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges district court rulings in a child custody proceeding. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because an appeal from an adverse ruling below constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that (1) extraordinary relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate rernedy at law; (2) an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief; and (3) petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Further, to the extent petitioner seeks modification of the district court's custody determinations, such a motion should be directed to and resolved by the district court in the first instance so that the factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. hnp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of facr and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "important public interests are involved"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Hardesty

e"gitr Parraguirre - Cadish c4/4, , J.

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge Thomas Alan Carr Law Offices of Andriea A. Aden, Esq., Chtd. Third District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

to) twTA OW*, 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carr Vs. Dist. Ct. (Carr), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-vs-dist-ct-carr-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack