Rogoff Vs. Marsh

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided April 16, 2020·No. 80829·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MARLENE ROGOFF, No. 80829 Appellant, VS. FILED JAMES MARSH, Res_pondent. APR 1 620 A. EROWN >E

DEPUTY. CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a post-judgment district court order determining appellant to be a vexatious litigant. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Trevor L. Atkin, Judge. Review of appellant notice of appeal and the other documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. This court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule." See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). No statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from a post-judgment vexatious litigant order. Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 295 P.3d 586 (2013). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'

Gibbons

Al4C44...0 J. Stiglich Silver

'Respondent's /notion to dismiss this appeal is denied as moot and the request for sanctions is denied. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A

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

Rogoff Vs. Marsh, (Neb. 2020).

Rogoff Vs. Marsh (Rogoff Vs. Marsh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC
301 P.3d 850 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2013)
Peck v. Crouser
295 P.3d 586 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2013)