Smith Vs. Hanchett (Child Custody)

475 P.3d 61
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 9, 2020
Docket80852
StatusPublished

This text of 475 P.3d 61 (Smith Vs. Hanchett (Child Custody)) 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. Hanchett (Child Custody), 475 P.3d 61 (Neb. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KURT A. SMITH, No. 80852 Appellant, vs. F STEPHANIE A. HANCHETT, F/K/A STEPHANIE A. SMITH, Res • ondent. NOV 0 9 20211

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an order denying modification of a divorce decree. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Rebecca Burton, Judge. This appeal was docketed in this court on March 27, 2020. Appellant failed to pay the filing fee until April 13, 2020. Appellant was obligated to file the docketing statement by April 27, 2020, and the rough draft transcript request form by May 4, 2020. The fast track statement was due by May 26, 2020. Appellant failed to timely file any of the documents, and on June 30, 2020, this court entered an order directing appellant to file all three documents within 14 days. On July 8 and 9, 2020, appellant attempted to e-file the transcript request form and the docketing statement. The clerk of this court rejected the documents because, although appellant is a licensed Nevada attorney, he is proceeding in this appeal pro se and is not entitled to use the court's e-filing system. Appellant filed the documents, including the fast track statement, by mail on July 22, 2020. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in its entirety pursuant to NRAP 3E(i) and NRAP 14, or in the alternative, to SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 PMTA 7f..7 - Gto r dismiss the first and fourth issues on appeal on the ground that appellant's consistent failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure warrant dismissal. Appellant has not opposed the motion. A party's failure to oppose a motion may constitute an admission that the motion was meritorious and consent to grant the motion. Walls v. Brewster, 112 Nev. 175, 178, 912 P.2d 261, 263 (1996). The motion is therefore granted, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'

1: 20).06.064. J. Parra guirre

, J. Hardesty

J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Rebecca Burton, District Judge, Family Court Division Kurt A. Smith The Dickerson Karacsonyi Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

'Respondent's request for an extension of time to file a fast track response is denied as moot.

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

Related

Walls v. Brewster
912 P.2d 261 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
475 P.3d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-vs-hanchett-child-custody-nev-2020.