Caruso v. Dist. Ct. (Maize)
This text of Caruso v. Dist. Ct. (Maize) (Caruso v. Dist. Ct. (Maize)) 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
when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Having considered petitioner's arguments and the documents before this court, we conclude that extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 21(b). In particular, petitioner is challenging an order, entered on remand from this court, in which the district court finally established child custody. Because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from that order, writ relief is not warranted. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see also NRAP 3A(b)(7) (providing that an order finally establishing or modifying child custody is appealable). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
J. Hardesty
iP7/4 J. Douglas
,J. Cherry
cc: Hon. Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Family Court Division F. Peter James Sterling Law, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1 ,147A are
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Caruso v. Dist. Ct. (Maize), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-dist-ct-maize-nev-2014.