Chambers Vs. Tumbarello

Nevada Supreme Court

Chambers Vs. Tumbarello

481 P.3d 235

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 1, 2021

Docket82398

StatusPublished

This text of 481 P.3d 235 (Chambers Vs. Tumbarello) 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

Chambers Vs. Tumbarello, 481 P.3d 235 (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GREGG CHAMBERS, AN INDIVIDUAL, No, 82398 Appellant, vs. EUGENE TUMBARELLO, AN FILED INDIVIDUAL; AND SHAMROCK MAR 0 1 2021 PAINTING, INC., ELIZA; A. BROWN PREME • Res • ondents. BY

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to quash a bench warrant) Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge. Respondents move to dismiss this appeal for lack ofjurisdiction. They contend the challenged order is not substantively appealable. Appellant opposes the motion. He argues that the order is appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8) because it was entered after the final judgment.2 We disagree with appellant. "[Mot all post-judgment orders are appealable." Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983). An appealable special order after final judgment is an order that affects the rights of a party to the action growing out of the previously entered judgment. Gamin v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002). Here, the order

1The clerk shall modify the caption of this appeal consistent with the caption on this order.

2Appellant's request that the motion to dismiss be denied because he was not served with the motion at the correct address is denied. denying the motion to quash a bench warrant does not affect the rights of any party growing out of the final judgment. Thus, it is not a special order after final judgment. And no other statute or court rule appears to allow an appeal from the challenged order. See Brown u. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court "rnay only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). As this court lacks jurisdiction, we grant the motion to dismiss arid ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

(fig' , J. Cadish

, J. 1;4 , J. Piaering Herndon

cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge Gregg Chambers Cory Reade Dows & Shafer Eighth District Court Clerk

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

GREGG CHAMBERS, AN INDIVIDUAL, No, 82398 Appellant, vs. EUGENE TUMBARELLO, AN FILED INDIVIDUAL; AND SHAMROCK MAR 0 1 2021 PAINTING, INC., ELIZA; A. BROWN PREME • Res • ondents. BY

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to quash a bench warrant) Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge. Respondents move to dismiss this appeal for lack ofjurisdiction. They contend the challenged order is not substantively appealable. Appellant opposes the motion. He argues that the order is appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8) because it was entered after the final judgment.2 We disagree with appellant. "[Mot all post-judgment orders are appealable." Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983). An appealable special order after final judgment is an order that affects the rights of a party to the action growing out of the previously entered judgment. Gamin v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002). Here, the order

1The clerk shall modify the caption of this appeal consistent with the caption on this order.

2Appellant's request that the motion to dismiss be denied because he was not served with the motion at the correct address is denied. denying the motion to quash a bench warrant does not affect the rights of any party growing out of the final judgment. Thus, it is not a special order after final judgment. And no other statute or court rule appears to allow an appeal from the challenged order. See Brown u. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court "rnay only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). As this court lacks jurisdiction, we grant the motion to dismiss arid ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

(fig' , J. Cadish

, J. 1;4 , J. Piaering Herndon

cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge Gregg Chambers Cory Reade Dows & Shafer Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 P.3d 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-vs-tumbarello-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack