Shoemaker (Tawney) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Shoemaker (Tawney) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJuly 30, 2021

Docket82919

StatusPublished

This text of Shoemaker (Tawney) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Shoemaker (Tawney) 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.

Bluebook

Shoemaker (Tawney) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TAWNEY LYNN SHOEMAKER, No. 82919 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUL 3 0 2021 MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT A. BROWN JUDGE, BY Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

On June 23, 2021, this court directed petitioner to obtain from the district court its written order with findings of fact and conclusions of law and supplement the appendix with such order. Petitioner has filed a response in which she argues that the district court previously assigned real party in interest the responsibility of preparing the order, and that real party in interest failed to do so. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228- 29, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). As part of petitioner's burden to show that such relief is warranted, it was her obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the petition, as this court specifically noted in our order directing petitioner to supplement the appendix. See NRAP 21(a)(4); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). This obligation included, at a minimum, contacting real party in interest and the district court to facilitate preparation of the court's order and, if such an order was not promptly

forthcoming, proposing her own order for the district court's review. Petitioner does not, however, argue or demonstrate that she made any such attempt to do so following this court's order directing her to obtain the district court's order. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Parra guirre Cadish

cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2

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

TAWNEY LYNN SHOEMAKER, No. 82919 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUL 3 0 2021 MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT A. BROWN JUDGE, BY Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

On June 23, 2021, this court directed petitioner to obtain from the district court its written order with findings of fact and conclusions of law and supplement the appendix with such order. Petitioner has filed a response in which she argues that the district court previously assigned real party in interest the responsibility of preparing the order, and that real party in interest failed to do so. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228- 29, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). As part of petitioner's burden to show that such relief is warranted, it was her obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the petition, as this court specifically noted in our order directing petitioner to supplement the appendix. See NRAP 21(a)(4); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). This obligation included, at a minimum, contacting real party in interest and the district court to facilitate preparation of the court's order and, if such an order was not promptly

forthcoming, proposing her own order for the district court's review. Petitioner does not, however, argue or demonstrate that she made any such attempt to do so following this court's order directing her to obtain the district court's order. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Parra guirre Cadish

cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shoemaker (Tawney) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoemaker-tawney-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack