Lands, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (L. A Minor)

Nevada Supreme Court

Lands, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (L. A Minor)

DecidedJune 17, 2022

Docket84749

StatusPublished

This text of Lands, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (L. A Minor) (Lands, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (L. A Minor)) 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

Lands, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (L. A Minor), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LANDS, INC., D/B/A SPRINGSTONE No. 84749 LAKES MONTESSORI SCHOOL; AND SPRINGLANDS LLC, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TARA JUN 1 7 2o2 D. CLARK NEWBERRY, DISTRICT EL1ZABEfH A. BROWN CLEILIREME COURT JUDGE, BY Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK

and J. L., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER, J.L., Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting partial summary judgment and granting a motion in limine to exclude evidence in a tort action. Having considered the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our discretionary and extraordinary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, the appendix petitioners provided to support their petition is incomplete and we are not otherwise convinced that petitioners lack an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and that the right to appeal is an adequate legal remedy that SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 411111)., P.2- 19 AO7 may preclude writ relief); see also Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 682-83, 476 P.M. 1194, 1197-98 (2020) (stating conditions requisite to mandamus relief, including that petitioners have a legal right to the act the petition seeks to compel, respondent has a plain duty to perform such act, and the absence of an alternate legal remedy). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED)

--24)taimattsy"""*.J. Pc raguirre

Piek9A tii j , J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Alverson Taylor & Sanders The Schnitzer Law Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 I947A 0060D

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

LANDS, INC., D/B/A SPRINGSTONE No. 84749 LAKES MONTESSORI SCHOOL; AND SPRINGLANDS LLC, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TARA JUN 1 7 2o2 D. CLARK NEWBERRY, DISTRICT EL1ZABEfH A. BROWN CLEILIREME COURT JUDGE, BY Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK

and J. L., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER, J.L., Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting partial summary judgment and granting a motion in limine to exclude evidence in a tort action. Having considered the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our discretionary and extraordinary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, the appendix petitioners provided to support their petition is incomplete and we are not otherwise convinced that petitioners lack an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and that the right to appeal is an adequate legal remedy that SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 411111)., P.2- 19 AO7 may preclude writ relief); see also Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 682-83, 476 P.M. 1194, 1197-98 (2020) (stating conditions requisite to mandamus relief, including that petitioners have a legal right to the act the petition seeks to compel, respondent has a plain duty to perform such act, and the absence of an alternate legal remedy). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED)

--24)taimattsy"""*.J. Pc raguirre

Piek9A tii j , J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Alverson Taylor & Sanders The Schnitzer Law Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 I947A 0060D

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lands, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (L. A Minor), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lands-inc-v-dist-ct-l-a-minor-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack