State Vs. Dist. Ct. (Farmer (Rigdell))

Nevada Supreme Court

State Vs. Dist. Ct. (Farmer (Rigdell))

DecidedMarch 5, 2020

Docket80696

StatusPublished

This text of State Vs. Dist. Ct. (Farmer (Rigdell)) (State Vs. Dist. Ct. (Farmer (Rigdell))) 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 Vs. Dist. Ct. (Farmer (Rigdell)), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THE STATE OF NEVADA, No. 80696 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAR 0 5 2020 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY DEPUTY C)-i CL tlI I RK RIGDELL FARMER, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original, emergenCy petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges an oral February 25, 2020, district court ruling granting defendant's motion to dismiss. On February 28, we directed submission of a written order and transmittal of the JAVS recordings, as well as an answer to the petition, and we imposed a temporary stay of the dismissal order. Having reviewed the March 2, 2020, written order and the answer, as well as the other documents on file, we now decline to consider the merits of this matter at. this time and thus deny the petition. A writ of mandamus may be entered to control an arbit?ary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hiil Gen. Improvement DW. v. Newmdn, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981); - see aif.o NRS 34.160, and a writ of prohibition is available to curb jurisdictional excesses, NRS 34.330. Neither writ will issue, however, when the petitioner has an

0 -(fic103 adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.340; Clay v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 445, 449, 305 P.3d 898, 901 (2013). Because the State here may appeal the district court's dismissal order, NRS 177.015(1)(b), we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ("[Tjhe right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief"); see also Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ is discretionary). Accordingly, we vacate our temporary stay and ORDER the petition DENIED.

S;201A06.5164+1. -" """r" J. Parraguirre

L-gx,tit-N J. Hardesty • J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Clark County Public Defender Eighth District Court Clerk

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, No. 80696 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAR 0 5 2020 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY DEPUTY C)-i CL tlI I RK RIGDELL FARMER, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original, emergenCy petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges an oral February 25, 2020, district court ruling granting defendant's motion to dismiss. On February 28, we directed submission of a written order and transmittal of the JAVS recordings, as well as an answer to the petition, and we imposed a temporary stay of the dismissal order. Having reviewed the March 2, 2020, written order and the answer, as well as the other documents on file, we now decline to consider the merits of this matter at. this time and thus deny the petition. A writ of mandamus may be entered to control an arbit?ary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hiil Gen. Improvement DW. v. Newmdn, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981); - see aif.o NRS 34.160, and a writ of prohibition is available to curb jurisdictional excesses, NRS 34.330. Neither writ will issue, however, when the petitioner has an

0 -(fic103 adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.340; Clay v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 445, 449, 305 P.3d 898, 901 (2013). Because the State here may appeal the district court's dismissal order, NRS 177.015(1)(b), we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ("[Tjhe right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief"); see also Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ is discretionary). Accordingly, we vacate our temporary stay and ORDER the petition DENIED.

S;201A06.5164+1. -" """r" J. Parraguirre

L-gx,tit-N J. Hardesty • J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Clark County Public Defender Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack