Hedland v. Dist. Ct. (Global Foods, Inc.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Hedland v. Dist. Ct. (Global Foods, Inc.)

DecidedOctober 13, 2014

Docket66397

StatusUnpublished

This text of Hedland v. Dist. Ct. (Global Foods, Inc.) (Hedland v. Dist. Ct. (Global Foods, Inc.)) 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

Hedland v. Dist. Ct. (Global Foods, Inc.), (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted, as the district court properly found that questions of fact remained, precluding summary judgment. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (noting that this court will generally not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment); see also Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (explaining that summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. It is so ORDERED.

J.

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Smith Legal Group Mortenson & Rafie, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194M ce

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

remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted, as the district court properly found that questions of fact remained, precluding summary judgment. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (noting that this court will generally not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment); see also Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (explaining that summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. It is so ORDERED.

J.

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Smith Legal Group Mortenson & Rafie, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194M ce

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hedland v. Dist. Ct. (Global Foods, Inc.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedland-v-dist-ct-global-foods-inc-nev-2014.

Opinion

J. Saitta

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack