Nelson v. Dist. Cy. (Nelson)

Nevada Supreme Court

Nelson v. Dist. Cy. (Nelson)

DecidedJune 15, 2018

Docket75676

StatusUnpublished

This text of Nelson v. Dist. Cy. (Nelson) (Nelson v. Dist. Cy. (Nelson)) 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

Nelson v. Dist. Cy. (Nelson), (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ERIC L. NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY, No. 75676 AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS INVESTMENT TRUSTEE OF THE ERIC L. NELSON NEVADA TRUST DATED MAY 30, 2001, Petitioner, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; Euzitinti k BROWN FtEME COB AND THE HONORABLE JOSEPH BY PrCLERtr HARDY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LYNITA SUE NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HER CAPACITY AS INVESTMENT TRUSTEE OF THE LYNITA S. NELSON NEVADA TRUST, DATED MAY 30, 2001, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss several tort claims based on the statute of limitations. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). We decline to exercise that discretion in this case for two reasons. First, we are not convinced that this matter fits an exception to the general rule that this court will not exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition that challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss, particularly given that the district court's decision was without prejudice. See generally Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ey, Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (acknowledging exceptions to general rule (1) where "considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate[ ] in favor of granting [the] petition[ ]" such as to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, (2) "where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action," or (3) where "an important issue of law requires clarification"). Second, the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, so petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

J.

cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, District Judge Solomon Dwiggins & Freer, Ltd. Rhonda K. Forsberg, Chtd. The Dickerson Karacsonyi Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194,A

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ERIC L. NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY, No. 75676 AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS INVESTMENT TRUSTEE OF THE ERIC L. NELSON NEVADA TRUST DATED MAY 30, 2001, Petitioner, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; Euzitinti k BROWN FtEME COB AND THE HONORABLE JOSEPH BY PrCLERtr HARDY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LYNITA SUE NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HER CAPACITY AS INVESTMENT TRUSTEE OF THE LYNITA S. NELSON NEVADA TRUST, DATED MAY 30, 2001, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss several tort claims based on the statute of limitations. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). We decline to exercise that discretion in this case for two reasons. First, we are not convinced that this matter fits an exception to the general rule that this court will not exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition that challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss, particularly given that the district court's decision was without prejudice. See generally Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ey, Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (acknowledging exceptions to general rule (1) where "considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate[ ] in favor of granting [the] petition[ ]" such as to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, (2) "where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action," or (3) where "an important issue of law requires clarification"). Second, the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, so petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

J.

cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, District Judge Solomon Dwiggins & Freer, Ltd. Rhonda K. Forsberg, Chtd. The Dickerson Karacsonyi Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194,A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nelson v. Dist. Cy. (Nelson), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-dist-cy-nelson-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack