Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles)

Nevada Supreme Court

Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles)

DecidedDecember 16, 2016

Docket70357

StatusUnpublished

This text of Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles) (Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles)) 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

Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MARCI KEY, No. 70357 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; FILED AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEC 1 6 2016 Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF IVIANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a petition for judicial review and remanding in a driver's license revocation matter. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. NRS 34.160 (mandamus scope); NRS 34.320 (prohibition scope); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously or exceeded its jurisdiction when it remanded the matter to the administrative agency for a new hearing to cure a violation of petitioner's right to confront a declarant. NRS 233B.135(3) (allowing the district court to remand on consideration of

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1.947A a petition for judicial review); see, e.g., Ramirez v. State, 114 Nev. 550, 563, 958 P.2d 724, 732 (1998) (remanding for a new trial upon determining that appellant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge The Hayes Law Firm Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4e

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

MARCI KEY, No. 70357 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; FILED AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEC 1 6 2016 Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF IVIANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a petition for judicial review and remanding in a driver's license revocation matter. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. NRS 34.160 (mandamus scope); NRS 34.320 (prohibition scope); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously or exceeded its jurisdiction when it remanded the matter to the administrative agency for a new hearing to cure a violation of petitioner's right to confront a declarant. NRS 233B.135(3) (allowing the district court to remand on consideration of

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1.947A a petition for judicial review); see, e.g., Ramirez v. State, 114 Nev. 550, 563, 958 P.2d 724, 732 (1998) (remanding for a new trial upon determining that appellant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge The Hayes Law Firm Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/key-v-dist-ct-state-dept-of-motor-vehicles-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack