G. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dept. of Family Serv.'s)

Nevada Supreme Court

G. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dept. of Family Serv.'s)

DecidedOctober 29, 2015

Docket68828

StatusUnpublished

This text of G. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dept. of Family Serv.'s) (G. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dept. of Family Serv.'s)) 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

G. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dept. of Family Serv.'s), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief from this court in the first instance without first seeking some form of relief in the district court. See State ex rel. List v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) ("this court prefers that such an application [for extraordinary relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court" in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Att'y Gen. v. Gypsum Res., LLC, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 294 P.3d 404, 411 (2013). There is no indication that petitioner has presented to the district court in the first instance the issues raised in this petition including whether the clerk of the district court has a ministerial duty to file the peremptory challenge, see Bowman v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 102 Nev. 474, 478, 728 P.2d 433, 435 (1986) (stating that absent contrary instructions from the court, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file documents presented in the proper form and has no judicial discretion to determine a document's propriety), and whether the challenge was timely under SCR 48.1, see State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 113 Nev. 1338, 1341, 948 P.2d 261, 262 (1997) (noting that the original judge retains jurisdiction to determine whether a peremptory challenge is timely until the clerk reassigns the case). The district court is in the better position to develop the factual and legal issues and provide this court with an adequate record for review.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 19474 700(9 Accordingly, because the issues raised in this petition are more appropriately addressed to the district court in the first instance, we deny this petition. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court). It is so ORDERED.

ID\ 01-A-A-04-2Cr , J. Parraguirre

Chsza Cherry J.

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Aaron Grigsby Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Christopher R. Tilman Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 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

Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief from this court in the first instance without first seeking some form of relief in the district court. See State ex rel. List v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) ("this court prefers that such an application [for extraordinary relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court" in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Att'y Gen. v. Gypsum Res., LLC, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 294 P.3d 404, 411 (2013). There is no indication that petitioner has presented to the district court in the first instance the issues raised in this petition including whether the clerk of the district court has a ministerial duty to file the peremptory challenge, see Bowman v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 102 Nev. 474, 478, 728 P.2d 433, 435 (1986) (stating that absent contrary instructions from the court, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file documents presented in the proper form and has no judicial discretion to determine a document's propriety), and whether the challenge was timely under SCR 48.1, see State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 113 Nev. 1338, 1341, 948 P.2d 261, 262 (1997) (noting that the original judge retains jurisdiction to determine whether a peremptory challenge is timely until the clerk reassigns the case). The district court is in the better position to develop the factual and legal issues and provide this court with an adequate record for review.