Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided December 16, 2015·No. 69244·Unpublished

Opinion

purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan,, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990).' It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons

CC: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Legal Resource Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner argues that the district applied the incorrect legal standard in reviewing his pretrial habeas petition. Because he has not shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in this regard, no relief is warranted. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e, uNNIBtiel,A

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

Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2015).

Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ostman v. Eighth Judicial District Court
816 P.2d 458 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Babayan
787 P.2d 805 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)