Garmong v. Dist. Ct. (Wespac)
This text of Garmong v. Dist. Ct. (Wespac) (Garmong v. Dist. Ct. (Wespac)) 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
relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the parties' arguments and the documents before us, we conclude that petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that the district court either had a legal duty to deny the motion to compel arbitration or arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the motion. See id. We
therefore deny the petition. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. It is so ORDERED.
C.J.
J.
J. Saitta
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Carl M. Hebert Sinai Schroeder Mooney Boetsch Bradley & Pace Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 19474 ew
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Garmong v. Dist. Ct. (Wespac), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garmong-v-dist-ct-wespac-nev-2014.