Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Spiropoulos)

Nevada Supreme Court

Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Spiropoulos)

DecidedAugust 16, 2013

Docket63676

StatusUnpublished

This text of Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Spiropoulos) (Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Spiropoulos)) 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

Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Spiropoulos), (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

233, 237 (2002). Both mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, and whether a petition for extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within our discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Our review of this writ petition and appendix indicates that the juvenile court has not entered a written, effective order placing the child with the natural father. On May 29, 2013, the juvenile master entered findings and a recommendation that the child be placed with the natural father. Petitioner filed an objection, and the juvenile court held a hearing on June 6, 2013, at which the court orally adopted the master's recommendation. Petitioner challenges both the master's written recommendation and the juvenile court's oral decision adopting that recommendation. The master's recommendation is not effective, however, until approved by the juvenile court. See EDCR 1.46(g)(9); In re A.B., 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 122, 127 (2012). As for the juvenile court's oral affirmation of the master's recommendation, this court has held that a district court's oral pronouncement from the bench is ineffective for any purpose. Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987). Petitioner did not provide this court with a copy of any written order from the juvenile court memorializing its ruling, and it is not clear whether one has been entered. Under these circumstances, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 (stating that the issuance of an extraordinary writ is purely discretionary with this court). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/ Ha de sty _c)

...4,A Parraguirre

CiN24 Cherry

cc: Hon. Cynthia N. Giuliani, District Judge Law Firm Express Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Damian S. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREIVIE COURT OF NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A

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

233, 237 (2002). Both mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, and whether a petition for extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within our discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Our review of this writ petition and appendix indicates that the juvenile court has not entered a written, effective order placing the child with the natural father. On May 29, 2013, the juvenile master entered findings and a recommendation that the child be placed with the natural father. Petitioner filed an objection, and the juvenile court held a hearing on June 6, 2013, at which the court orally adopted the master's recommendation. Petitioner challenges both the master's written recommendation and the juvenile court's oral decision adopting that recommendation. The master's recommendation is not effective, however, until approved by the juvenile court. See EDCR 1.46(g)(9); In re A.B., 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 122, 127 (2012). As for the juvenile court's oral affirmation of the master's recommendation, this court has held that a district court's oral pronouncement from the bench is ineffective for any purpose. Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987). Petitioner did not provide this court with a copy of any written order from the juvenile court memorializing its ruling, and it is not clear whether one has been entered. Under these circumstances, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith,