Russell Apts., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Davis)

Nevada Supreme Court

Russell Apts., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Davis)

DecidedJune 17, 2022

Docket83826

StatusPublished

This text of Russell Apts., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Davis) (Russell Apts., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Davis)) 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

Russell Apts., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Davis), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RUSSELL APTS., LLC, D/B/A VIVIANI, No. 83826 A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; OVATION BUSINESS SERVICES, D/B/A OVATION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, Petitioners, VS. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUN 1 7 2022 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELIZABETH A. BROWN IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; CLERK OF6'UPRE.4E COURT AND THE HONORABLE JESSICA K. BY • 421 C :1;64*. DEPUTY ERK PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LISA ANN DAVIS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND SIDNEY DAVIS, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion in limine to limit expert witness testimony in a torts matter. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging admissibility

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 4WD AP-1 2-10 determinations, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524-25, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining admissibility-related writ petitions). We therefore, ORDER the petition DENIED.'

A2kXck.j:),ri pa.J. Paraguirre

t;y , J. Sr.J. PickerinPgi.

cc: Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP Mainor Wirth Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

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

RUSSELL APTS., LLC, D/B/A VIVIANI, No. 83826 A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; OVATION BUSINESS SERVICES, D/B/A OVATION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, Petitioners, VS. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUN 1 7 2022 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELIZABETH A. BROWN IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; CLERK OF6'UPRE.4E COURT AND THE HONORABLE JESSICA K. BY • 421 C :1;64*. DEPUTY ERK PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LISA ANN DAVIS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND SIDNEY DAVIS, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion in limine to limit expert witness testimony in a torts matter. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging admissibility

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 4WD AP-1 2-10 determinations, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524-25, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining admissibility-related writ petitions). We therefore, ORDER the petition DENIED.'

A2kXck.j:),ri pa.J. Paraguirre

t;y , J. Sr.J. PickerinPgi.

cc: Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP Mainor Wirth Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Russell Apts., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Davis), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-apts-llc-v-dist-ct-davis-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack