Workman v. Attorney General

Nevada Supreme Court

Workman v. Attorney General

DecidedNovember 26, 2014

Docket65716

StatusUnpublished

This text of Workman v. Attorney General (Workman v. Attorney General) 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

Workman v. Attorney General, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In the motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto, petitioner Rick Workman seeks leave to file such a petition in order to challenge the right of real party in interest Arthur "Andy" Hafen to continue to serve as the mayor of Henderson. Having considered the parties' arguments and the documents before us, we conclude that Workman lacks standing to file either a statutory quo warranto action or a constitutional petition for a writ of quo warranto, as he has not identified any interest that he has in the office of Henderson mayor or in the outcome of a quo warranto petition that is distinct from that of the general public. See NRS 35.040; NRS 35.050; Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 219 P.3d 895 (2009). Similarly, in the alternative petition for a writ of mandamus, Workman seeks an order requiring respondents Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller to file a quo warranto petition or otherwise take action to remove Hafen from office. Again, because Workman has not identified any beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceeding apart from any interests that he shares with the community at large, we conclude that Workman lacks standing to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this matter. See NRS 34.170 (providing that a writ of mandamus shall issue "on the application of the party beneficially interested"); Heller v. Legislature, 120 Nev. 456, 461, 93 P.3d 746, 750 (2004) ("To demonstrate a beneficial interest sufficient to pursue a mandamus action, a party must show a direct and substantial interest that falls within the zone of interests to be protected by the legal

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A duet. duty asserted.' (quoting Lindelli v. San Anselmo, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 461 (App. Ct. 2003))). Accordingly, we deny both the motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto and the alternative petition for a writ of mandamus. It is so ORDERED.

C.J. Gibbons

fritc-t , J. Hardesty

ah,-4-9kr Parraguirre

Saitta

CC: Hardy Law Group Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Henderson City Attorney

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A meD

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

In the motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto, petitioner Rick Workman seeks leave to file such a petition in order to challenge the right of real party in interest Arthur "Andy" Hafen to continue to serve as the mayor of Henderson. Having considered the parties' arguments and the documents before us, we conclude that Workman lacks standing to file either a statutory quo warranto action or a constitutional petition for a writ of quo warranto, as he has not identified any interest that he has in the office of Henderson mayor or in the outcome of a quo warranto petition that is distinct from that of the general public. See NRS 35.040; NRS 35.050; Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 219 P.3d 895 (2009). Similarly, in the alternative petition for a writ of mandamus, Workman seeks an order requiring respondents Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller to file a quo warranto petition or otherwise take action to remove Hafen from office. Again, because Workman has not identified any beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceeding apart from any interests that he shares with the community at large, we conclude that Workman lacks standing to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this matter. See NRS 34.170 (providing that a writ of mandamus shall issue "on the application of the party beneficially interested"); Heller v. Legislature, 120 Nev. 456, 461, 93 P.3d 746, 750 (2004) ("To demonstrate a beneficial interest sufficient to pursue a mandamus action, a party must show a direct and substantial interest that falls within the zone of interests to be protected by the legal