Tahiti Village Master Ass'n v. Dist. Ct. (M&h Enterprises, Inc.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Tahiti Village Master Ass'n v. Dist. Ct. (M&h Enterprises, Inc.)

DecidedSeptember 3, 2015

Docket64803

StatusUnpublished

This text of Tahiti Village Master Ass'n v. Dist. Ct. (M&h Enterprises, Inc.) (Tahiti Village Master Ass'n v. Dist. Ct. (M&h Enterprises, Inc.)) 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

Tahiti Village Master Ass'n v. Dist. Ct. (M&h Enterprises, Inc.), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

committed such an error amounting to a manifest abuse of discretion that would merit extraordinary writ relief in dismissing Tahiti Village's constructional defect claim but allowing it to proceed with its remaining claims. We the People Nev. ex rel. Angle v. Miller, 124 Nev. 874, 879-80, 192 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2008) (party seeking writ relief carries the burden to show that the district court committed such a manifest abuse of discretion that would warrant this court's extraordinary and discretionary intervention); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 475, 168 P.3d 731, 737 (2007) (writ of mandamus may be available to compel the performance of an act required by law or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion). For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion in favor of entertaining this petition for extraordinary writ relief. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851(1991) (decision to issue writ relief lies within the discretion of this court). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J . Hardesty

Douglas

, J. Saitta

Gibbons SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Hutchison & Steffen, LLC Anna T. Amundson Schwartz Flansburg PLLC Marquis Aurbach Coffing Lincoln, Gustafson & Cercos Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEvADA 3 r,O1 1 ,147A es,

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

committed such an error amounting to a manifest abuse of discretion that would merit extraordinary writ relief in dismissing Tahiti Village's constructional defect claim but allowing it to proceed with its remaining claims. We the People Nev. ex rel. Angle v. Miller, 124 Nev. 874, 879-80, 192 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2008) (party seeking writ relief carries the burden to show that the district court committed such a manifest abuse of discretion that would warrant this court's extraordinary and discretionary intervention); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 475, 168 P.3d 731, 737 (2007) (writ of mandamus may be available to compel the performance of an act required by law or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion). For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion in favor of entertaining this petition for extraordinary writ relief. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851(1991) (decision to issue writ relief lies within the discretion of this court). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.