Patterson (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Patterson (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Patterson (Christopher) 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
district court's decision on appeal in the event that he is convicted, NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045, he has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and, therefore, this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is not warranted, NRS 34.170. Petitioner has not pointed to any circumstances that reveal urgency or strong necessity for this court to intervene even though there is an alternative remedy available. Cf. Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 901-02, 34 P.3d 509, 515-16 (2001) (concluding that review through writ petition was warranted even though there was an alternative remedy where there were 56 similar cases with the same issues pending in lower courts and petition presented issue of great statewide importance). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b). It is so ORDERED.
/—L4 J4 J. Hardesty
ov-it y J. Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 101 1947A 41M49
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Patterson (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-christopher-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2014.