Estate of William George Dyer v. Dist. Ct. (Guernier)

Nevada Supreme Court

Estate of William George Dyer v. Dist. Ct. (Guernier)

DecidedFebruary 3, 2015

Docket63963

StatusUnpublished

This text of Estate of William George Dyer v. Dist. Ct. (Guernier) (Estate of William George Dyer v. Dist. Ct. (Guernier)) 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

Estate of William George Dyer v. Dist. Ct. (Guernier), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of real parties in interest, who then filed a motion for additur with an alternative motion for a new trial. The district court granted the latter. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting a new trial and, while that motion was pending, filed an appeal from that same order. After the district court denied reconsideration, petitioner filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings below. Upon granting the stay, we filed an order for petitioner to show cause as to why we should not dismiss that portion of the appeal related to the motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner then filed this writ petition, which is virtually identical to its previously filed petition. Petitioner contends that its petition for a writ of prohibition merits this court's consideration because the district court committed legal error and the petition raises an important issue of law requiring clarification. Generally, "[a] writ of prohibition is the appropriate remedy for a district court's erroneous refusal to quash service of process." Casentini u. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, 110 Nev. 721, 724, 877 P.2d 535, 537-38 (1994). Nevertheless, writ relief is issued at the discretion of this court. Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. , , 313 P.3d 875, 877-78 (2013). We decline to consider this petition for two reasons. First, we previously considered and denied petitioner's virtually identical writ petition related to the same underlying case And, second, we are unconvinced that the remedy available if we granted this petition would

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A e gfz "1:-2,--f • - be anything but a new trial—the very thing that the district court has already granted.' We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

LraAtA, Hardesty

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Barron & Pruitt, LLP Richard Harris Law Firm Marquis Aurbach Coffing Eighth District Court Clerk

'We note that despite this, petitioner is appealing the district court's order granting a new trial.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 947A

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

Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of real parties in interest, who then filed a motion for additur with an alternative motion for a new trial. The district court granted the latter. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting a new trial and, while that motion was pending, filed an appeal from that same order. After the district court denied reconsideration, petitioner filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings below. Upon granting the stay, we filed an order for petitioner to show cause as to why we should not dismiss that portion of the appeal related to the motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner then filed this writ petition, which is virtually identical to its previously filed petition. Petitioner contends that its petition for a writ of prohibition merits this court's consideration because the district court committed legal error and the petition raises an important issue of law requiring clarification. Generally, "[a] writ of prohibition is the appropriate remedy for a district court's erroneous refusal to quash service of process." Casentini u. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, 110 Nev. 721, 724, 877 P.2d 535, 537-38 (1994). Nevertheless, writ relief is issued at the discretion of this court. Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. , , 313 P.3d 875, 877-78 (2013). We decline to consider this petition for two reasons. First, we previously considered and denied petitioner's virtually identical writ petition related to the same underlying case And, second, we are unconvinced that the remedy available if we granted this petition would