Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJuly 21, 2020

Docket81358

StatusPublished

This text of Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Smith 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

Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LATONIA SMITH, No. 81358 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK, Respondent, 1 2020 and ELl A. BRO CLE PR THE STATE 0 V NEVADA; BY VEPtHY CLERK FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.; AND WADE BEAVERS, Real Parties in l.nterest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Thi:- 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-19-803954-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(1)(1) (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 exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that Ipletitioned ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating i hat extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

MI 1947A ategba je- twv90 7 Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so OH DERED.1

Piekfm. • ,C.J. Pickering

#444(0.6a

Hardesty Stiglich

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

'In light of this order, we deny petitioner's request for "notice and additional time 1(»-e-fashion the certificatee as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A 4sgPOD

. :•

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. 81358 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK, Respondent, 1 2020 and ELl A. BRO CLE PR THE STATE 0 V NEVADA; BY VEPtHY CLERK FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.; AND WADE BEAVERS, Real Parties in l.nterest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Thi:- 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-19-803954-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(1)(1) (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 exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that Ipletitioned ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating i hat extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

MI 1947A ategba je- twv90 7 Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so OH DERED.1

Piekfm. • ,C.J. Pickering

#444(0.6a

Hardesty Stiglich

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

'In light of this order, we deny petitioner's request for "notice and additional time 1(»-e-fashion the certificatee as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A 4sgPOD

. :•

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack