Natalie M. v. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Natalie M. v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Natalie M. 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.
Opinion
P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnote omitted); see also NRS 34.160. A writ of
prohibition is the "proper remedy to restrain a district judge from
exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction."
Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851
(1991); see also NRS 34.320. Either writ will issue only "where there is
not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Generally, the right to appeal is an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law that will preclude writ relief. Pan v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). "[T]his court typically will not exercise its discretion to review a pretrial
discovery order unless the order could result in irreparable prejudice, such
as when the order is a blanket discovery order or an order requiring
disclosure of privileged information." Vanguard Piping Sys., Inc. v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 63, 309 P.3d 1017, 1019 (2013).
Here, if petitioner is aggrieved by the final judgment in the
pending juvenile delinquency matter, she may appeal that determination
and challenge the pretrial discovery order. NRS 62D.500(1); NRAP
3A(b)(1); Consol. Generator-Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev.
1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that interlocutory
orders may be challenged in the context of an appeal from the final
judgment). Therefore, we conclude that petitioner has a speedy and
adequate legal remedy available and that our intervention is not
warranted. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 (holding that "the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with
this court"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
•
J. Saitt
J. Gibbons
J.
cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division Aaron Grigsby Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1.947A
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Natalie M. v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natalie-m-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2015.