Kids & Horses Vs. Dist. Ct. (Pavlakis)

Nevada Supreme Court

Kids & Horses Vs. Dist. Ct. (Pavlakis)

DecidedJuly 22, 2021

Docket82453

StatusPublished

This text of Kids & Horses Vs. Dist. Ct. (Pavlakis) (Kids & Horses Vs. Dist. Ct. (Pavlakis)) 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

Kids & Horses Vs. Dist. Ct. (Pavlakis), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KIDS & HORSES, A DOMESTIC NON- No. 82453 PROFIT CORPORATION; AND VINCE PIROZZI, Petitioners, VS. THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUL 2 2 2021 DOUGLAS; AND THE HONORABLE H A. BRO'NN PREME COURT THOMAS W. GREGORY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and KAREN PAVLAKIS, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a tort action.' Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that petitioners made the required showing to invoke mandamus or prohibition relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted and that such relief will generally issue only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). As a general rule, subject to very few exceptions, we have declined to exercise

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4424). 71-2\11-3- our discretion with respect to writ petitions that challenge district court orders that deny summary judgment motions. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because the issue presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment. NRS 34.1.70; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is an adequate and speedy remedy). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish

Adm. J. Pickering

_14/4-r , J. Herndon

cc: Hon. Thomas W. Gregory, District Judge Bradley Paul Elley Kilpatrick Bullentini Douglas County Clerk

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

KIDS & HORSES, A DOMESTIC NON- No. 82453 PROFIT CORPORATION; AND VINCE PIROZZI, Petitioners, VS. THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUL 2 2 2021 DOUGLAS; AND THE HONORABLE H A. BRO'NN PREME COURT THOMAS W. GREGORY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and KAREN PAVLAKIS, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a tort action.' Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that petitioners made the required showing to invoke mandamus or prohibition relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted and that such relief will generally issue only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). As a general rule, subject to very few exceptions, we have declined to exercise

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4424). 71-2\11-3- our discretion with respect to writ petitions that challenge district court orders that deny summary judgment motions. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because the issue presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment. NRS 34.1.70; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is an adequate and speedy remedy). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish

Adm. J. Pickering

_14/4-r , J. Herndon

cc: Hon. Thomas W. Gregory, District Judge Bradley Paul Elley Kilpatrick Bullentini Douglas County Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kids & Horses Vs. Dist. Ct. (Pavlakis), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kids-horses-vs-dist-ct-pavlakis-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack