Law Office Of Dan M. Winder P.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Atkinson)

Nevada Supreme Court

Law Office Of Dan M. Winder P.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Atkinson)

DecidedJuly 21, 2021

Docket83198

StatusPublished

This text of Law Office Of Dan M. Winder P.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Atkinson) (Law Office Of Dan M. Winder P.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Atkinson)) 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

Law Office Of Dan M. Winder P.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Atkinson), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THE LAW OFFICE OF DAN M. No. 83198 WINDER, P.C., A DOMESTIC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND DAN M. WINDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. FL THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUL Z 1 2021 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EUZAiSI i A BROWN CLE 1 1 .4. UPREME C o U :a CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY 111 DEPUTY CLERK GLORIA STURMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LAVELLE P. ATKINSON; AND SHEILA ATKINSON, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders

21 2,106c1 denying surnmary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment). Petitioners have an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment, precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (IT]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.1

, C.J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C. Integrity Law Firm Maier Gutierrez & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioners emergency motion for stay of the district court proceedings pending our consideration of this writ petition is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVAOA

(0) 047A 300. 41 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

THE LAW OFFICE OF DAN M. No. 83198 WINDER, P.C., A DOMESTIC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND DAN M. WINDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. FL THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUL Z 1 2021 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EUZAiSI i A BROWN CLE 1 1 .4. UPREME C o U :a CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY 111 DEPUTY CLERK GLORIA STURMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LAVELLE P. ATKINSON; AND SHEILA ATKINSON, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders

21 2,106c1 denying surnmary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment). Petitioners have an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment, precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (IT]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.1

, C.J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C. Integrity Law Firm Maier Gutierrez & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioners emergency motion for stay of the district court proceedings pending our consideration of this writ petition is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVAOA

(0) 047A 300. 41 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Law Office Of Dan M. Winder P.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Atkinson), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-office-of-dan-m-winder-pc-vs-dist-ct-atkinson-nev-2021.

Opinion

J. Cadish

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack