Martinez v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Martinez v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedOctober 18, 2013

Docket62955

StatusUnpublished

This text of Martinez v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Martinez v. Dist. Ct. (State)) 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

Martinez v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Here, the petition alleged that petitioner had physically abused the child. The district court found that while petitioner was not served with a summons, he had actual notice of a letter sent to him advising him of the trial date. Specifically, an investigator for Social Services testified that she sent a letter via certified mail to petitioner's residence, and he signed a receipt for the letter. This court has held that actual notice is not a substitute for service of process. See C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 709 (1990). Because petitioner was not properly served with a summons under NRS 432B.520, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition as to him. Id. Accordingly, we grant this petition and we issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to enter an order vacating the master's findings and recommendations that sustained the May 28, 2010, abuse and neglect petition as to petitioner.' It is so ORDERED.

Hardesty

06.04,

Parraguirre

'Although the master's findings and recommendations were never reduced to writing, the district court entered an order on March 18, 2013, denying petitioner's objection to the master's recommendations, which effectively affirmed the master's findings and recommendations.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

(1:H11MZeKZ2ZEffffftMMMVe5S4

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

Here, the petition alleged that petitioner had physically abused the child. The district court found that while petitioner was not served with a summons, he had actual notice of a letter sent to him advising him of the trial date. Specifically, an investigator for Social Services testified that she sent a letter via certified mail to petitioner's residence, and he signed a receipt for the letter. This court has held that actual notice is not a substitute for service of process. See C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 709 (1990). Because petitioner was not properly served with a summons under NRS 432B.520, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition as to him. Id. Accordingly, we grant this petition and we issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to enter an order vacating the master's findings and recommendations that sustained the May 28, 2010, abuse and neglect petition as to petitioner.' It is so ORDERED.