judyrecords
search tips
770 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record

BOBBY STEPHENS MASONRY VS. DISTRICT COURT

Case Information: 37732
Short Caption:BOBBY STEPHENS MASONRY VS. DISTRICT COURTCourt:Supreme Court
Related Case(s): 41703
Lower Court Case(s):Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - A410326Classification:Original Proceeding - Civil - Mandamus
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
04/19/2001Filing FeeReceived Filing Fee Paid on Filing. $200.00 from Legal Express--check no. 10857.
04/19/2001Petition/WritFiled Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 01-06685
04/19/2001AppendixFiled Appendix. Petitioners' Appendix to Petition for Writ of Mandate. 01-06686
04/19/2001Notice/OutgoingIssued Notice of Procedural Deficiency. Affidavit and proof of service on district judge. Due Date: 10 days
05/01/2001Notice/IncomingFiled Proof of Service. Receipt of Copy by Judge Douglas for Petition for Writ of Mandate. 01-07241
05/01/2001Notice/IncomingFiled Proof of Service. Receipt of Copy by Judge Douglas for Appendix to Petition for Writ of Mandate. 01-07243
05/16/2001Order/DispositionalFiled Order Denying Petition. Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus. " . . . we deny the writ petition." Counsel for petitioners shall have 30 days from the date of this order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his apparent lack of candor to this court. NNP01A-MS/DA/RR 01-08142
06/12/2001RemittiturIssued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. 01-08176
06/12/2001Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.
06/14/2001MotionFiled Response to Order to Show Cause. Declaration of Michael W. Caspino in Response to Order to Show Cause. 01-09952
06/20/2001Order/ProceduralFiled Order. In response to this court's order entered on May 16, 2001, counsel has demonstrated to our satisfaction that he did not misrepresent the status of a related district court case. We conclude, therefore, that sanctions are not warranted. 01-10437