Liu, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Yee Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Med., P.C.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Liu, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Yee Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Med., P.C.)

DecidedJanuary 29, 2015

Docket66267

StatusUnpublished

This text of Liu, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Yee Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Med., P.C.) (Liu, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Yee Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Med., P.C.)) 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

Liu, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Yee Advanced Orthopedics & Sports Med., P.C.), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the writ petition and appendices, we conclude that the district court did not arbitrarily exercise its discretion in striking petitioners' witnesses and permitting petitioners to procure new witnesses, and petitioners have failed to otherwise demonstrate that the law compels relief in their favor. Id.; Int'l Game Tech, Inc., 124 Nev. at 197; 179 P.3d at 558. We therefore decline to grant this petition for extraordinary relief. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 679; 818 P.2d at 853. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

L Rf act ria.

Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, & McKenna Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

'The stay imposed by our November 20, 2014, order is hereby vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF

NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A .434.

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

relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the writ petition and appendices, we conclude that the district court did not arbitrarily exercise its discretion in striking petitioners' witnesses and permitting petitioners to procure new witnesses, and petitioners have failed to otherwise demonstrate that the law compels relief in their favor. Id.; Int'l Game Tech, Inc., 124 Nev. at 197; 179 P.3d at 558. We therefore decline to grant this petition for extraordinary relief. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 679; 818 P.2d at 853. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'