Q. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark County Dep't. of Family Services)

Nevada Supreme Court

Q. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark County Dep't. of Family Services)

DecidedOctober 29, 2015

Docket68751

StatusUnpublished

This text of Q. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark County Dep't. of Family Services) (Q. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark County Dep't. of Family Services)) 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

Q. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark County Dep't. of Family Services), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

notice that his peremptory challenge had been rejected by the clerk as untimely on August 12, 2015, yet petitioner did not appear at the August 21 status check on the peremptory challenge or otherwise promptly bring the issue before the district court. Although petitioner now argues that he was not properly notified of the August 21 hearing, the record further indicates that petitioner was served with a summons notifying him of the September 2, 2015, adjudicatory plea hearing, and again petitioner did not promptly bring this issue before the court. Rather, petitioner failed to appear at the hearing of September 2, and the district court proceeded to adjudicate the abuse and neglect petition as to petitioner. Once a judge has made a ruling on a contested matter, a peremptory challenge may not be filed. SCR 48.1(5). Under these circumstances, we decline to intervene in this matter and we deny this petition. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court). It is so ORDERED.

J. Parraguirre

Douglas

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Aaron Grigsby Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division SUPREME COURT Brown Law Office OF Eighth District Court Clerk NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A esa

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

notice that his peremptory challenge had been rejected by the clerk as untimely on August 12, 2015, yet petitioner did not appear at the August 21 status check on the peremptory challenge or otherwise promptly bring the issue before the district court. Although petitioner now argues that he was not properly notified of the August 21 hearing, the record further indicates that petitioner was served with a summons notifying him of the September 2, 2015, adjudicatory plea hearing, and again petitioner did not promptly bring this issue before the court. Rather, petitioner failed to appear at the hearing of September 2, and the district court proceeded to adjudicate the abuse and neglect petition as to petitioner. Once a judge has made a ruling on a contested matter, a peremptory challenge may not be filed. SCR 48.1(5). Under these circumstances, we decline to intervene in this matter and we deny this petition. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court). It is so ORDERED.

J. Parraguirre

Douglas

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Aaron Grigsby Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division SUPREME COURT Brown Law Office OF Eighth District Court Clerk NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A esa

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Q. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark County Dep't. of Family Services), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/q-v-dist-ct-clark-county-dept-of-family-services-nev-2015.

Opinion

J. Parraguirre

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack