LAW.coLAW.co

CATHERINE TORRES v. LESLIE CARTWRIGHT (2024)

Supreme Court of Nevada.2024-05-03No. No. 88158

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition seeking to compel the district court to permit testimony regarding real party in interests prior injuries and felony convictions and to prohibit the district court from allowing a new trial to proceed with the prior restrictions on introducing evidence of prior injuries or felonies.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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 discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). “This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district courts jurisdiction.” NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition and supporting documents we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Smith, 107 Nev. at 679, 818 P.2d at 853. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.