Manguin v. W. Progressive Nev., Inc.

Nevada Supreme Court

Manguin v. W. Progressive Nev., Inc.

501 P.3d 430

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 2022

Docket83857

StatusPublished

This text of 501 P.3d 430 (Manguin v. W. Progressive Nev., Inc.) 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

Manguin v. W. Progressive Nev., Inc., 501 P.3d 430 (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOLAN MANGUIN; AND CARMEN No. 83857 MANGUIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS, Petitioners, FILED vs. JAN 0 3 2022 WESTERN PROGRESSIVE-NEVADA, INC., ELIZA8ET11 A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Res ondent. ay 5 N1ALAA-- DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a non-judicial foreclosure based upon petitioner's homestead exemption. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

101 IS47A oraPsa even though "important public interests are involved"); State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

-- 914)te6"agt1EIT Parraguirre Stiglich , J.

cc: Carmen Manguin Jolan Manguin Western Progressive-Nevada, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10) 1,147A 44.6Nto

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

JOLAN MANGUIN; AND CARMEN No. 83857 MANGUIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS, Petitioners, FILED vs. JAN 0 3 2022 WESTERN PROGRESSIVE-NEVADA, INC., ELIZA8ET11 A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Res ondent. ay 5 N1ALAA-- DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a non-judicial foreclosure based upon petitioner's homestead exemption. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

101 IS47A oraPsa even though "important public interests are involved"); State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

-- 914)te6"agt1EIT Parraguirre Stiglich , J.

cc: Carmen Manguin Jolan Manguin Western Progressive-Nevada, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10) 1,147A 44.6Nto

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 P.3d 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manguin-v-w-progressive-nev-inc-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack