Natalie M. v. Dist. Ct. (State)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 4, 2015
Docket67537
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
Natalie M. v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2015).

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

Bluebook (online)
Natalie M. v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natalie-m-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2015.