Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath)

Nevada Supreme Court

Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath)

DecidedDecember 22, 2014

Docket66808

StatusUnpublished

This text of Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath) (Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath)) 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

Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath), (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for writ of mandamus will be considered is within this court's sole discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioners' burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Moreover, writ relief is generally available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted at this time. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ez, cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols Patti, Sgro & Lewis North Las Vegas City Attorney Phillip Hack & Associates APC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for writ of mandamus will be considered is within this court's sole discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioners' burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Moreover, writ relief is generally available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted at this time. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ez, cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols Patti, Sgro & Lewis North Las Vegas City Attorney Phillip Hack & Associates APC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foothills-pediatrics-llc-v-dist-ct-heath-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack