Radonski (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Radonski (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedMay 15, 2019

Docket78406

StatusUnpublished

This text of Radonski (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Radonski (David) 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.

Bluebook

Radonski (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAVID CHARLES RADONSKI, No. 78406 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1Li COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; MAY 15 Ii AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN M. DRAKULICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZAB CLERK cOURT

Respondents, BY

and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to modify bail. We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to modify bail. See NRS 34.160; see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev. 158, 161, 321 P.3d 882, 884 (2014) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus "will not serve to control the proper exercise of [ ] discretion or to substitute the judgment of this court for that of the lower tribunal" (quoting Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 310, 646 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1982))); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion as "one founded on prejudice or preference rather than

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 0-2,132,3 (0) I947A reason, or contrary to the evidence or established rules of law" (internal citations and quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J.

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) 1947A e

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

DAVID CHARLES RADONSKI, No. 78406 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1Li COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; MAY 15 Ii AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN M. DRAKULICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZAB CLERK cOURT

Respondents, BY

and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to modify bail. We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to modify bail. See NRS 34.160; see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev. 158, 161, 321 P.3d 882, 884 (2014) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus "will not serve to control the proper exercise of [ ] discretion or to substitute the judgment of this court for that of the lower tribunal" (quoting Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 310, 646 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1982))); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion as "one founded on prejudice or preference rather than

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 0-2,132,3 (0) I947A reason, or contrary to the evidence or established rules of law" (internal citations and quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J.

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Radonski (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radonski-david-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2019.

Opinion

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack