Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (Caesars Entm'T Corp.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (Caesars Entm'T Corp.)

DecidedJuly 21, 2020

Docket81357

StatusPublished

This text of Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (Caesars Entm'T Corp.) (Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (Caesars Entm'T Corp.)) 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

Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (Caesars Entm'T Corp.), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LATONIA SMITH, No. 81357 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH d UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TFI l STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK, Respondent, and CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; PHWLV, LLC, D/B/A PLANET HOL I NWOOD RESORT AND CASINO; SHA N NON PIERCE; AND ETHAN THOMAS, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition, which we have construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeks an order directing the district court to reopen and stay petitioner's civil case in A-19-793549-C. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or documentation that would support her claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(d) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to eNcrcise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that Ipletitioned carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan u. Eighth

"2-10 ill 7 • Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so ORDERED.

Add,. C.J. Pickering

/ 16-A- tAtAt'N , M4G4...0 J. J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Latonia Smith Eighth District Court Clerk Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A aeftga

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

LATONIA SMITH, No. 81357 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH d UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TFI l STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK, Respondent, and CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; PHWLV, LLC, D/B/A PLANET HOL I NWOOD RESORT AND CASINO; SHA N NON PIERCE; AND ETHAN THOMAS, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition, which we have construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeks an order directing the district court to reopen and stay petitioner's civil case in A-19-793549-C. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or documentation that would support her claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(d) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to eNcrcise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that Ipletitioned carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan u. Eighth

"2-10 ill 7 • Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so ORDERED.

Add,. C.J. Pickering

/ 16-A- tAtAt'N , M4G4...0 J. J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Latonia Smith Eighth District Court Clerk Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A aeftga

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (Caesars Entm'T Corp.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-vs-dist-ct-caesars-entmt-corp-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack