judyrecords
search tips
630 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record

MICHAELS VS. DIST. CT. (MICHAELS)

Case Information: 42054
Short Caption:MICHAELS VS. DIST. CT. (MICHAELS)Court:Supreme Court
Related Case(s): 38868 , 41360 , 41433
Lower Court Case(s):Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - D219100Classification:Original Proceeding - Civil - Proper Person Writ Petition
Disqualifications:Case Status:Notice in Lieu of Remittitur Issued/Case Closed
Replacement:Panel Assigned: Panel
To SP/Judge:SP Status:
Oral Argument:Oral Argument Location:
Submission Date:How Submitted:

+ Party Information

Docket Entries
DateTypeDescriptionPending?Document
09/17/2003Filing Fee Filing Fee due. 04/08/04 Order-fn6: we conclude that petitioner has demonstrated that good cause exists to waive the filing fee in this matter and therefore waive the filing fee requirement.
09/17/2003Petition/WritFiled Proper Person Petition for Writ. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 03-15562
09/17/2003Notice/OutgoingIssued Notice to Pay Supreme Court Filing Fee. Due Date: 10 days
04/08/2004Order/DispositionalFiled Order Denying Petition. Order of Affirmance (No. 41433) and Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 42054). Docket No. 41433 is a proper person appeal from a post-decree district court order denying appellant's motion to modify the child custody arrangement. Docket No. 42054 is an original proper person petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order concerning contempt. Having reviewed the documents before us, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion to modify the child custody arrangement. We further conclude that the portion of the district court's order directing appellant to pay $150 per month on the $3,266.85 total attorney fees award is not substantively appealable because the district court merely structured a payment schedule in enforcing a prior order awarding fees and interest. It appears that appellant did not appeal from the prior order. We decline to consider that issue on appeal. Order of Affirmance. With respect to the petition for a writ of mandamus, we have considered the petition, and we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted at this time. "We deny the petition." fn6[Although appellant and respondent were not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the proper person documents received from them. Appellant has submitted a motion for leave from this court to proceed in forma pauperis, but his motion does not comply with NRAP 24(a). Appellant's failure to pay the supreme court filing fee or to comply with NRAP 24(a) could constitute a basis on which to dismiss this appeal. Also, appellant/petitioner submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the writ proceeding. We conclude that appellant/petitioner has demonstrated that good cause exists to waive the filing fee in that matter and therefore waive the filing fee requirement. See NRAP 21(e). In light of this order, we deny as moot appellant's May 21, 2003 motion for stay, and we deny all other relief requested.] SNP04S-MS/RR/WM. Nos. 41433/42054 cases are not consolidated. 04-06535
05/11/2004Post-Judgment OrderFiled Order/Rehearing Denied. "Rehearing denied." fn1[NRAP 40(c).] fn2[ We direct the clerk of this court to file the rehearing petition, which was received in both docket numbers on April 26, 2004.] SNP04S-MS/RR/WM. Nos. 41433/42054 cases are not consolidated. 04-08780
05/11/2004Post-Judgment PetitionFiled Proper Person Petition for Rehearing. 04-07647
06/08/2004RemittiturIssued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. 04-08910
06/08/2004Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.