Nev. Ready Mix, Inc. Vs. Nev. Tax Comm'N

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 2019
Docket76482
StatusPublished

This text of Nev. Ready Mix, Inc. Vs. Nev. Tax Comm'N (Nev. Ready Mix, Inc. Vs. Nev. Tax Comm'N) 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
Nev. Ready Mix, Inc. Vs. Nev. Tax Comm'N, (Neb. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

NEVADA READY MIX, INC.; AND No. 76482 SERVICE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC., Appellants, vs. NEVADA TAX COMMISSION, STATE FILED OF NEVADA, SEP 1 6 20: 9 7 Res s ondent. BROWN ME cOuR

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE BY , OEPUTY aERK

This is an appeal from a district court's post-judgment order denying appellants motion to hold respondent in contempt and to direct performance of a specific act pursuant to NRCP 70. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge. Nevada Ready Mix, Inc., and Service Rock Products, Inc. (collectively, the taxpayers) challenge the district court's denial of their NRCP 70 motion for contempt and to direct performance of a specific act. The taxpayers argue on appeal that respondent Nevada Tax Commission did not comply with the district court's order requiring it to revise a previously released advisory opinion. We review a district court's ruling on an NRCP 70 motion for an abuse of discretion. See Randono u. Nev. Real Estate Comm'n, 79 Nev. 132, 139, 379 P.2d 537, 540 (1963) (concluding that the district court was "within its discretion, under Rule 70," in denying a motion to cite for contempt). Because "[a] court has, and should have, wide latitude in making a determination of whether there has been contemptuous defiance of its own orders," Neebars, Inc. v. Long Bar Grinding, Inc., 438 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1971), and the taxpayers have not demonstrated that the district SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 11. 3 trOkr (0) I947A daPo court exercised this authority in an improper manner, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the taxpayers motion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge Stoel Rives LLP/Sacramento Hale & Wood, PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

fit'W •

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nev. Ready Mix, Inc. Vs. Nev. Tax Comm'N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nev-ready-mix-inc-vs-nev-tax-commn-nev-2019.