Hurd v. Dist. Ct. (Opipari)

Nevada Supreme Court

Hurd v. Dist. Ct. (Opipari)

DecidedSeptember 19, 2022

Docket85215

StatusPublished

This text of Hurd v. Dist. Ct. (Opipari) (Hurd v. Dist. Ct. (Opipari)) 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

Hurd v. Dist. Ct. (Opipari), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KYMBERLIE JOY HURD, No. 85215 INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, A.H.O., g . Petitioners, vs. SEP 9 2022 THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT !:, 7t.,1:EAvt:i5 ::"AfN COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF E. CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BILL HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MARIO OPIPARI, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenges several temporary district court custodial orders.' This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.

SUPREME COURT 1 We grant petitioner's request to exceed page length. OF NEVADA

1 , 11 19.17A • Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

‘. o epprirfirFrgRal • j e .

Parraguirre

— ft I 11/40 J. Hardesty

Stiglich

cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division Kymberlie Joy Hurd Crome Law Firm Ford & Friedman, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT 21n light of this order, petitioner's motion for stay is denied as moot. OF NEVADA

It )1 L 7A 41:155:i.fp 2

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KYMBERLIE JOY HURD, No. 85215 INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, A.H.O., g . Petitioners, vs. SEP 9 2022 THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT !:, 7t.,1:EAvt:i5 ::"AfN COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF E. CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BILL HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MARIO OPIPARI, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenges several temporary district court custodial orders.' This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.

SUPREME COURT 1 We grant petitioner's request to exceed page length. OF NEVADA

1 , 11 19.17A • Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

‘. o epprirfirFrgRal • j e .

Parraguirre

— ft I 11/40 J. Hardesty

Stiglich

cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division Kymberlie Joy Hurd Crome Law Firm Ford & Friedman, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT 21n light of this order, petitioner's motion for stay is denied as moot. OF NEVADA

It )1 L 7A 41:155:i.fp 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hurd v. Dist. Ct. (Opipari), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurd-v-dist-ct-opipari-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack