Douglas v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Douglas v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedMarch 19, 2013

Docket60900

StatusUnpublished

This text of Douglas v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Douglas 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.

Bluebook

Douglas v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

way of extraordinary relief. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we conclude that the petition should be denied. We are, however, concerned by petitioner's allegation that the district court's law clerk, instead of the district court judge, purported to rule on several of petitioner's motions. We caution respondents that law clerks are precluded from exercising any judicial authority, including ruling on motions, See Sullivan v. District Court, 111 Nev. 1367, 1370 n.5, 904 P.2d 1039, 1041 n.5 (1995) (providing that "a judge's law clerk lacks judicial authority"), and any unfiled documents received in a department should be routed to the clerk's office for processing. It is so ORDERED.'

Gibbons

Saitta

'We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motions provisionally received on May 29 and 31, 2012, and we conclude that no action is necessary on these motions as this court has already granted petitioner's motion to waive the filing fee. We also direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's June 22, 2012, supplement to the petition. We have considered this supplement in our resolution of this petition.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division Eric T. Douglas Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A

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

way of extraordinary relief. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we conclude that the petition should be denied. We are, however, concerned by petitioner's allegation that the district court's law clerk, instead of the district court judge, purported to rule on several of petitioner's motions. We caution respondents that law clerks are precluded from exercising any judicial authority, including ruling on motions, See Sullivan v. District Court, 111 Nev. 1367, 1370 n.5, 904 P.2d 1039, 1041 n.5 (1995) (providing that "a judge's law clerk lacks judicial authority"), and any unfiled documents received in a department should be routed to the clerk's office for processing. It is so ORDERED.'