judyrecords
search tips
770 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record

KADDIK VS. DIST. CT. (CHIAPONE)

Case Information: 40153
Short Caption:KADDIK VS. DIST. CT. (CHIAPONE)Court:Supreme Court
Related Case(s): 40621
Lower Court Case(s):Lyon Co. - Third Judicial District - CI14823Classification:Original Proceeding - Civil - Proper Person Writ Petition
Disqualifications:Case Status: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
09/04/2002Filing FeeReceived Filing Fee Paid on Filing. $200.00 cash from Kathryn Mattos (Kaddik).
09/04/2002Petition/WritFiled Proper Person Petition for Writ. Petition for Writ and Request for Stay of District Court Proceedings. 02-15229
09/04/2002Petition/WritFiled Exhibits to Petition for Writ. 02-15230
10/16/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order Granting Motion. fn1[Although petitioners were not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the proper person documents received from them.] We conclude that a temporary stay is warranted, pending receipt and consideration of any opposition to the motion for stay. We also note that a trial on the merits is set for October 16, and so this matter may soon be moot. We temporarily stay the district court's order finding petitioners in contempt and directing issuance of a writ of possession. No other proceeding in the district court, including the trial on the merits, is stayed. The real parties in interest shall have 15 days from the date of this order to file an opposition to the motion, which shall include information on the current status of the underlying district court action. 02-17955
12/19/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order/Answer Writ Petition. Order Directing Response and Answer. On October 16, 2002, this court temporarily stayed the contempt order pending our recept and consideration of a response to the motion for a stay, due by October 31, 2002. To this date, no response has been filed. We order the real parties in interest to file the response within 25 days of this order's date. The real party in interest, on behalf of respondents, shall also filed within 25 days of this order's date an answer, including authorities, against issuance of the requested writ(s). 02-21781
12/27/2002Petition/WritFiled Answer to Petition for Writ. John J. Chiappone's Response and Answer to Petitioners' Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. 02-22107
01/08/2003Notice/IncomingFiled Proof of Service. (John J. Chiappone's Response and Answer to Petitioners' Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition). 03-00413
03/06/2003Order/DispositionalFiled Order Denying Petition. Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. "We deny the petition." The motion for a stay is denied as moot. fn3[We vacate our temporary stay entered in this case on October 16, 2002. Although petitioners have not been granted permission to file documents in this matter in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have received and considered their proper person documents.] SNP03-MS/ML/NB 03-03793
03/25/2003Notice/OutgoingIssued Notice to Pay Supreme Court Filing Fee. ($100 fee due on rehearing.) Due Date: 10 days
04/04/2003Filing FeeReceived Filing Fee Paid on Filing. $100 from Kathryn Kaddik-cash.
04/08/2003Post-Judgment OrderFiled Order/Rehearing Denied. "Rehearing denied." fn1[NRAP 40(c). We direct the clerk of this court to file the rehearing petition, provisionally received on March 24, 2003. See NRAP 46(b).] SNP03-MS/ML/NB 03-05902
04/08/2003Post-Judgment PetitionFiled Proper Person Petition for Rehearing. Motion for Rehearing. 03-04986
04/28/2003Other Returned Mail. Order denying rehearing addressed to Gary Kevin Ness returned-Not at this address. No forwarding address.
05/06/2003RemittiturIssued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. 03-06228
05/06/2003Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.
05/21/2003Post-Judgment OrderFiled Order Denying En Banc Reconsideration. We have considered the petition for reconsideration, and we conclude that en banc reconsideration is not warranted. fn1[NRAP 40A(a).] Accordingly, " . . . we deny the petition." fn2[We direct the clerk of this court to file the petition for reconsideration, provisionally received on April 18, 2003. See NRAP 46(b).] EN BANC 03-08604
05/21/2003Post-Judgment PetitionFiled Answer to Petition for En Banc Reconsideration. 03-06670