Schumacher v. Schumacher

Nevada Supreme Court

Schumacher v. Schumacher

DecidedSeptember 19, 2013

Docket61035

StatusUnpublished

This text of Schumacher v. Schumacher (Schumacher v. Schumacher) 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

Schumacher v. Schumacher, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

opportunity to be heard, but largely chose not to participate in the divorce trial based on his belief that the discovery process was not complete. See Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007) (noting that procedural due process is satisfied when a party has notice and an opportunity to be heard). Further, to the extent that appellant contends that the district court judge was biased in refusing to allow him additional discovery, and thus, should have recused himself from the case because appellant never properly sought the disqualification of the district court judge by filing an affidavit specifying the basis for the disqualification, he has waived this issue, and thus, we will not consider it in resolving this appeal. See NRS 1.235(1) (requiring a party seeking disqualification of a district court judge to file an affidavit detailing the facts demonstrating that disqualification is necessary); Brown v. Fed. Say. and Loan Ins. Corp., 105 Nev. 409, 412, 777 P.2d 361, 363 (1989) (explaining that a party waives the issue of disqualification on appeal if that party does not properly request disqualification). Under these circumstances, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

LCO (44-42 , J Dougl

elL •••••s••s•••••.• j

Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division Chris Schumacher Margaret Marie Schumacher Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

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

opportunity to be heard, but largely chose not to participate in the divorce trial based on his belief that the discovery process was not complete. See Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007) (noting that procedural due process is satisfied when a party has notice and an opportunity to be heard). Further, to the extent that appellant contends that the district court judge was biased in refusing to allow him additional discovery, and thus, should have recused himself from the case because appellant never properly sought the disqualification of the district court judge by filing an affidavit specifying the basis for the disqualification, he has waived this issue, and thus, we will not consider it in resolving this appeal. See NRS 1.235(1) (requiring a party seeking disqualification of a district court judge to file an affidavit detailing the facts demonstrating that disqualification is necessary); Brown v. Fed. Say. and Loan Ins. Corp., 105 Nev. 409, 412, 777 P.2d 361, 363 (1989) (explaining that a party waives the issue of disqualification on appeal if that party does not properly request disqualification). Under these circumstances, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.