Quaintance v. Dist. Ct. (The Palmer Law Firm P.C.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Quaintance v. Dist. Ct. (The Palmer Law Firm P.C.)

DecidedDecember 12, 2022

Docket85761

StatusPublished

This text of Quaintance v. Dist. Ct. (The Palmer Law Firm P.C.) (Quaintance v. Dist. Ct. (The Palmer Law Firm P.C.)) 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

Quaintance v. Dist. Ct. (The Palmer Law Firm P.C.), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BONNIE NYBERG QUAINTANCE, AN No. 85761 INDIVIDUAL IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY ALDEN QUAINTANCE, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEC 1 L 2022 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELEAB A. BROWN CLE F PREME COURI CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK

Respondents, and THE PALMER LAW FIRM P.C., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND RICHARD B. HERMAN, P.C., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks a stay pending appeal, in light of the district court's failure to hear a stay motion filed below before the morning of an evidentiary hearing. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A aneilW• 2 z - 3 gct.C1 relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Writ relief is available only when there is no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy, Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and here, petitioner may move for a stay in her appeal, which was docketed in this court last week. Nelson v. Heer, 121 Nev. 832, 122 P.3d 1252 (2005), as modified (Jan. 25, 2006); NRAP 8. Thus, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Moreover, we are not inclined to intervene before the district court has had an opportunity to consider petitioner's stay motion. See NRAP 8(a); TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 Nev. Advi Op. 21, 506 P.3d 1056 (2022). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

ACa. Hardesty

Al4C;•,—.0 Stiglich

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Hatfield & Associates, Ltd. Law Office of Mary F. Chapman, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A

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

BONNIE NYBERG QUAINTANCE, AN No. 85761 INDIVIDUAL IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY ALDEN QUAINTANCE, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEC 1 L 2022 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELEAB A. BROWN CLE F PREME COURI CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK

Respondents, and THE PALMER LAW FIRM P.C., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND RICHARD B. HERMAN, P.C., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks a stay pending appeal, in light of the district court's failure to hear a stay motion filed below before the morning of an evidentiary hearing. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A aneilW• 2 z - 3 gct.C1 relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Writ relief is available only when there is no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy, Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and here, petitioner may move for a stay in her appeal, which was docketed in this court last week. Nelson v. Heer, 121 Nev. 832, 122 P.3d 1252 (2005), as modified (Jan. 25, 2006); NRAP 8. Thus, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Moreover, we are not inclined to intervene before the district court has had an opportunity to consider petitioner's stay motion. See NRAP 8(a); TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 Nev. Advi Op. 21, 506 P.3d 1056 (2022). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

ACa. Hardesty

Al4C;•,—.0 Stiglich

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Hatfield & Associates, Ltd. Law Office of Mary F. Chapman, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Quaintance v. Dist. Ct. (The Palmer Law Firm P.C.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quaintance-v-dist-ct-the-palmer-law-firm-pc-nev-2022.

Opinion

J. Herndon

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack