Rutherford v. Henderson Municipal Court

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 11, 2015
• Docket: 68583
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

637 P.2d 534 (1981). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170. Here, the district court's order denying Rutherford's mandamus petition is an appealable determination. See NRS 2.090(2) (providing for an appeal "from an order granting or refusing to grant . mandamus in the case provided for by law"); NRAP 3A(b)(1) (providing that an appeal may be taken from district court orders in civil actions, including "[a] final judgment entered in an action or proceeding commenced in the court in which the judgment is rendered"). Therefore, he had an adequate legal remedy to challenge the district court's order, and he has provided no basis upon which we should nevertheless exercise our discretion to consider the petition. See City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Meunier), 124 Nev. 540, 544, 188 P.3d 55, 58 (2008) (observing that this court may exercise its discretion to consider petitions for extraordinary relief even if an adequate remedy at law exists "under circumstances revealing urgency and strong necessity, or when an important issue of law requires clarification and sound judicial economy favors granting the petition") (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

HD OUL1 2t4.-C Douglas Cherry

SUPREME COURT OP NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ce cc: Hon. Diana Hampton, Municipal Court Judge The Pariente Law Firm, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A de.