Stamps v. Stamps

Nevada Supreme Court

Stamps v. Stamps

415 P.3d 1004

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 2018

DocketNo. 75204

StatusPublished

This text of 415 P.3d 1004 (Stamps v. Stamps) 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

Stamps v. Stamps, 415 P.3d 1004 (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Maurice Stamps

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order establishing child custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division. Clark County; Rebecca Burton, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed under NRAP 4(a) because it appears that it was prematurely filed, before the entry of a final written judgment. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; Rust v. Clark Cty. School District , 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987).

While the district court held a hearing and filed a written "Parenting Agreement" that addressed visitation on January 23, 2018, the court also entered a subsequent detailed minute order including findings of fact and conclusions of law that finally established the custody of the children on January 25, 2018. Appellant identifies the rulings of January 25, 2018, in his notice of appeal. However, as this court has consistently held, the district court's oral pronouncement from the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order do not definitively resolve a disputed matter and cannot be appealed. Id. at 689, 747 P.2d at 1382. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is premature, and we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore,

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

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

Maurice Stamps

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order establishing child custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division. Clark County; Rebecca Burton, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed under NRAP 4(a) because it appears that it was prematurely filed, before the entry of a final written judgment. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; Rust v. Clark Cty. School District , 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987).

While the district court held a hearing and filed a written "Parenting Agreement" that addressed visitation on January 23, 2018, the court also entered a subsequent detailed minute order including findings of fact and conclusions of law that finally established the custody of the children on January 25, 2018. Appellant identifies the rulings of January 25, 2018, in his notice of appeal. However, as this court has consistently held, the district court's oral pronouncement from the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order do not definitively resolve a disputed matter and cannot be appealed. Id. at 689, 747 P.2d at 1382. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is premature, and we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore,

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 P.3d 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stamps-v-stamps-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack