Centofanti, Iii (Alfred) Vs. Clerk Of Court

Nevada Supreme Court

Centofanti, Iii (Alfred) Vs. Clerk Of Court

DecidedMay 20, 2021

Docket82684

StatusPublished

This text of Centofanti, Iii (Alfred) Vs. Clerk Of Court (Centofanti, Iii (Alfred) Vs. Clerk Of Court) 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

Centofanti, Iii (Alfred) Vs. Clerk Of Court, (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ALFRED P. CENTOFANTI, III, No. 82684 Petitioner, vs. ELIZABETH A. BROWN, CLERK OF FILE COURT, Res s ondent. MAY 2 0 2021 EuzABErH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUrY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBTITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition seeking an order directing the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motion to recall the remittitur issued in Alfred P. Centofanti, III v. State of Nevada, Docket No. 78193, on March 3, 2021, and motion for relief from judgment in that case. We are not convinced that petitioner has met his burden to show that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Accordingly, we

-1 Š ORDER the petition DENIED.'

(4.°‘,61 -d7c C.J.

Hardesty

A.A.A ,J. ,J. Parraguirre Stiglich

LIZe/AiA_ ... , J. J. Silver

Herndon

cc: Alfred P. Centofanti, III Attorney General/Carson City

IThe Honorable Elissa Cadish, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.

To the extent petitioner complains that Justice Cadish participated in Docket No. 78193, which involved an appeal of her decision as a district court judge, we note Justice Cadish did not participate in the resolution of the petition for review and issuance of the order denying petition for review with her signature was error. The clerk of this court shall file a corrected order in Docket No. 78193 that denies the petition for review and accurately reflects the justices who participated in the decision.

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

ALFRED P. CENTOFANTI, III, No. 82684 Petitioner, vs. ELIZABETH A. BROWN, CLERK OF FILE COURT, Res s ondent. MAY 2 0 2021 EuzABErH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUrY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBTITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition seeking an order directing the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motion to recall the remittitur issued in Alfred P. Centofanti, III v. State of Nevada, Docket No. 78193, on March 3, 2021, and motion for relief from judgment in that case. We are not convinced that petitioner has met his burden to show that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Accordingly, we

-1 Š ORDER the petition DENIED.'

(4.°‘,61 -d7c C.J.

Hardesty

A.A.A ,J. ,J. Parraguirre Stiglich

LIZe/AiA_ ... , J. J. Silver

Herndon

cc: Alfred P. Centofanti, III Attorney General/Carson City

IThe Honorable Elissa Cadish, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.

To the extent petitioner complains that Justice Cadish participated in Docket No. 78193, which involved an appeal of her decision as a district court judge, we note Justice Cadish did not participate in the resolution of the petition for review and issuance of the order denying petition for review with her signature was error. The clerk of this court shall file a corrected order in Docket No. 78193 that denies the petition for review and accurately reflects the justices who participated in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Centofanti, Iii (Alfred) Vs. Clerk Of Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centofanti-iii-alfred-vs-clerk-of-court-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack