Regional Transp. Comm'n. of S. Nev. v. Wang

Nevada Supreme Court

Regional Transp. Comm'n. of S. Nev. v. Wang

DecidedSeptember 28, 2015

Docket67919

StatusUnpublished

This text of Regional Transp. Comm'n. of S. Nev. v. Wang (Regional Transp. Comm'n. of S. Nev. v. Wang) 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

Regional Transp. Comm'n. of S. Nev. v. Wang, (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

immediately appealable. The motion is opposed. Having considered the motion and the arguments of counsel, and cause appearing, we deny the motion to confirm jurisdiction. This court has declined to adopt the collateral order doctrine: Interlocutory appeals cause delay, expense and disruption. Adopting the collateral order doctrine would require this court to extensively screen appeals from interlocutory orders to determine whether this court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction lines would become unfocused and uncertain. This in turn could result in a proliferation of premature appeals. These burdens would outweigh any possible benefits that could result from adoption of the collateral order doctrine. State Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspun, 109 Nev. 1022, 1025, 862 P.2d 423, 425 (1993) (internal citations omitted). Instead, this court addresses challenges to a district court's preliminary rejection of a claim of governmental immunity through its powers to grant extraordinary relief. See, e.g., State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court ex rd. Cnty. of Washoe, 118 Nev. 609, 617, 55 P.3d 420, 425 (2002). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). As no statute or court rule

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e 2 permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss, Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990), we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

, C.J. Hardesty

qA J. Douglas

Cherry

cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division Mainor Wirth G. Dallas Horton & Associates Henness & Haight Edward M. Bernstein & Associates/Las Vegas Callister & Associates Golightly & Vannah, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

'We deny as moot the motion to dismiss and associated notice of interested party filed September 11, 2015, and September 14, 2015.

(0) 1947A ceSts• 3

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

immediately appealable. The motion is opposed. Having considered the motion and the arguments of counsel, and cause appearing, we deny the motion to confirm jurisdiction. This court has declined to adopt the collateral order doctrine: Interlocutory appeals cause delay, expense and disruption. Adopting the collateral order doctrine would require this court to extensively screen appeals from interlocutory orders to determine whether this court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction lines would become unfocused and uncertain. This in turn could result in a proliferation of premature appeals. These burdens would outweigh any possible benefits that could result from adoption of the collateral order doctrine. State Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspun, 109 Nev. 1022, 1025, 862 P.2d 423, 425 (1993) (internal citations omitted). Instead, this court addresses challenges to a district court's preliminary rejection of a claim of governmental immunity through its powers to grant extraordinary relief. See, e.g., State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court ex rd. Cnty. of Washoe, 118 Nev. 609, 617, 55 P.3d 420, 425 (2002). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). As no statute or court rule