Morrissey v. Dist. Ct. (Chamlee)

Nevada Supreme Court

Morrissey v. Dist. Ct. (Chamlee)

DecidedDecember 22, 2014

Docket66837

StatusUnpublished

This text of Morrissey v. Dist. Ct. (Chamlee) (Morrissey v. Dist. Ct. (Chamlee)) 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

Morrissey v. Dist. Ct. (Chamlee), (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

NRS 34.320. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is generally available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and the right to an appeal is typically deemed an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition and appendix filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Id.; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see also NRAP 21(b)(1). Here, petitioner has an adequate and speedy legal remedy in that the district court's sanction award can be challenged in the context of an appeal from the ultimate final judgment in the case below. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Hardesty

1.DU Ltef -

Douglas Cherry

2 Inlight of this order, we deny as moot all requests for relief pending in this matter. The clerk of this court shall therefore return, unfiled the documents that real party in interest sought to file under seal, which are attached to real party in interest's December 3, 2014, motion to seal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Kang & Associates PLLC Stovall & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1941A

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

NRS 34.320. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is generally available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and the right to an appeal is typically deemed an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition and appendix filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Id.; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see also NRAP 21(b)(1). Here, petitioner has an adequate and speedy legal remedy in that the district court's sanction award can be challenged in the context of an appeal from the ultimate final judgment in the case below. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2