Helfrich v. Vitto
This text of Helfrich v. Vitto (Helfrich v. Vitto) 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PETER JASON HELFRICH, No. 84388 Petitioner, Fi 1 r vs. tar KIRK VITTO; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA, Res s ondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct respondents to act in a federal case. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Additionally, we decline to intervene because petitioner failed to submit an adequate appendix for our review. See NRS 34.160; NRAP 21(a)(4). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Parraguirre
J. Hardesty
J. Stiglich
1 We further decline to address the notice petitioner filed on March 16, 2022, as our decision renders it moot.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I q47A — t2_616 ce: Peter Jason Helfrich Attorney General/Carson City
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 KO 1947A argig0
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Helfrich v. Vitto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helfrich-v-vitto-nev-2022.