Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cvitonavich (Aaron) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cvitonavich-aaron-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2015.