Schneider (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Schneider (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Schneider (Michael) Vs. 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MICHAEL DURAND SCHNEIDER; AND No. 80890 LEILANI TAU-SCHNEIDER, Petitioners, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN FILE AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; MAY 1 5 2020 AND THE HONORABLE SCOTT N. EUZABETH A. BROWN FREEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK OF, , SUPREME COURT By Respondents, CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus and supplemental pleadings. We have considered the petition on file herein, and we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted. See Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered). A writ of prohibition is not available because the district court had jurisdiction over the criminal case and the defendants. See NRS 34.320; Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and deterxnine the matter under consideration"). Further, petitioners have not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the pretrial petition and supplemental pleadings. NRS 34.160; State v. Eighth Judicial
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
19A7A *SO. 420 -1557g 4 .A Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (recognizing that an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one that is contrary to the evidence or established rules of law). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
J. Gibbo s
AleitP-1•0 , J. Stiglich
J. Silver
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Carter R. King Richard F. Cornell Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Schneider (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-michael-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.