State, Dep'T Of Trans. Vs. Dist. Ct. (First Presbyterian Church Of Las Vegas)

Nevada Supreme Court

State, Dep'T Of Trans. Vs. Dist. Ct. (First Presbyterian Church Of Las Vegas)

DecidedJuly 16, 2020

Docket81275

StatusPublished

This text of State, Dep'T Of Trans. Vs. Dist. Ct. (First Presbyterian Church Of Las Vegas) (State, Dep'T Of Trans. Vs. Dist. Ct. (First Presbyterian Church Of Las Vegas)) 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

State, Dep'T Of Trans. Vs. Dist. Ct. (First Presbyterian Church Of Las Vegas), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT No. 81275 OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN FILE AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JERRY A. JUL 1 6 2020 WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LAS VEGAS, D/B/A GRACE PRESBYTERIAN, A NEVADA DOMESTIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND ITS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST; AND GRACE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, A NEVADA DOMESTIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting and denying motions for partial summary judgment in an inverse condemnation action. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

-a o - 2 117-0‘e discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment). In particular, petitioner has an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.'

.44;4400 J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Transportation Division/Las Vegas Law Offices of Brian C. Padgett Leach Kern Gruchow Anderson Song/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this disposition, we deny as moot petitioner's July 2, 2020, stay motion.

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

THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT No. 81275 OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN FILE AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JERRY A. JUL 1 6 2020 WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LAS VEGAS, D/B/A GRACE PRESBYTERIAN, A NEVADA DOMESTIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND ITS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST; AND GRACE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, A NEVADA DOMESTIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting and denying motions for partial summary judgment in an inverse condemnation action. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

-a o - 2 117-0‘e discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment). In particular, petitioner has an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.'

.44;4400 J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Transportation Division/Las Vegas Law Offices of Brian C. Padgett Leach Kern Gruchow Anderson Song/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this disposition, we deny as moot petitioner's July 2, 2020, stay motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State, Dep'T Of Trans. Vs. Dist. Ct. (First Presbyterian Church Of Las Vegas), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-dept-of-trans-vs-dist-ct-first-presbyterian-church-of-las-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack