Western States Contracting, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Blair)

Nevada Supreme Court

Western States Contracting, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Blair)

DecidedApril 15, 2020

Docket80891

StatusPublished

This text of Western States Contracting, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Blair) (Western States Contracting, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Blair)) 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

Western States Contracting, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Blair), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WESTERN STATES CONTRACTING, No. 80891 INC., Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR I 5 2020 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELIZABETH A.EqkOWN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE supRaw CpURT

JAMES CROCKETT, DISTRICT AA Virt:f ii41.'17 CLERK JUDGE, Respondents, and JOHN BLAIR, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND A WRIT OF PROHIBITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition challenging a district court order granting partial summary judgment and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration. A writ of mandamus "is available to compel performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an 'office, trust or station' or to control a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of, discretion." See Cheung v. Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 868-69, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) quoting NRS 34.160. The counterpart to a writ of mandate, a writ of prohibition, is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See State of Nev. v. Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). Although the rule is not absolute, see Inel Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142- 43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), generally, neither writ will issue when SUPREAIE COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 411Pax 2.0 - 114311 petitioner has a "plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy in the ordinary course of law." Gumm v. State, Dep't of Education, 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853, 856 (2005). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. We therefore conclude that interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pommy ' , C.J. Pickering

Ato-t &ens-tn Hardesty , j. Cadish CeofirA) , J.

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Resnick & Louis, P.C./Las Vegas The Paul Powell Law Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 440/00 2

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

WESTERN STATES CONTRACTING, No. 80891 INC., Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR I 5 2020 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELIZABETH A.EqkOWN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE supRaw CpURT

JAMES CROCKETT, DISTRICT AA Virt:f ii41.'17 CLERK JUDGE, Respondents, and JOHN BLAIR, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND A WRIT OF PROHIBITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition challenging a district court order granting partial summary judgment and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration. A writ of mandamus "is available to compel performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an 'office, trust or station' or to control a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of, discretion." See Cheung v. Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 868-69, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) quoting NRS 34.160. The counterpart to a writ of mandate, a writ of prohibition, is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See State of Nev. v. Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). Although the rule is not absolute, see Inel Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142- 43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), generally, neither writ will issue when SUPREAIE COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 411Pax 2.0 - 114311 petitioner has a "plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy in the ordinary course of law." Gumm v. State, Dep't of Education, 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853, 856 (2005). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. We therefore conclude that interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pommy ' , C.J. Pickering

Ato-t &ens-tn Hardesty , j. Cadish CeofirA) , J.

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Resnick & Louis, P.C./Las Vegas The Paul Powell Law Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 440/00 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Western States Contracting, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Blair), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-states-contracting-inc-vs-dist-ct-blair-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack