| Case Information: 38025 | |||
| Short Caption: | CARPINO VS. NOVA CARE | Court: | Supreme Court |
| Lower Court Case(s): | Carson City - First Judicial District - 0000891A | Classification: | Civil Appeal - Family Law - Proper Person |
| Disqualifications: | Case Status: | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed | |
| Replacement: | Panel Assigned: | Panel | |
| To SP/Judge: | SP Status: | ||
| Oral Argument: | Oral Argument Location: | ||
| Submission Date: | 07/18/2001 | How Submitted: | On Record |
| + Party Information |
| Docket Entries | ||||
| Date | Type | Description | Pending? | Document |
| 06/13/2001 | Filing Fee | Filing Fee Waived. | ||
| 06/13/2001 | Notice of Appeal Documents | Filed Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal/Proper Person. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. | 01-09896 | |
| 06/20/2001 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order/Transmit Record and Directing Response. original record due: 30 days. fn3[The record shall not include any exhibits filed in the district court.] | 01-10361 | |
| 07/11/2001 | Notice/Outgoing | Issued Letter. to appellant Joseph M. Carpino in response to letter dated June 21, 2001. | ||
| 07/18/2001 | Record on Appeal Documents | Filed Record on Appeal Copy. Volumes 1 and 2. | 01-12246 | |
| 07/18/2001 | Case Status Update | Submitted for Decision. | ||
| 03/20/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion for Stay. Respondents, Novacare, Dave King, Mike Straughan and Forest Sexton's Motion to Stay. | 02-04975 | |
| 03/25/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order/Show Cause. Respondents shall have 20 days from the date of this order to show cause why their motion for a stay should not be summarily denied as being without merit. Failure to timely produce documents in support of their motion for a stay may result in this court's denial of their motion. | 02-05264 | |
| 04/10/2002 | Motion | Filed Response to Order to Show Cause. regarding Respondent's, Novacare, Dave King, Mike Straughan and Forest Sexton's Motion to Stay. | 02-06376 | |
| 04/08/2004 | Order/Dispositional | Filed Order of Affirmance. fn1[Although appellant was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the proper person documents received from appellant.] "We affirm the district court's order," fn12[We deny as moot respondents' motion for a stay of this proceeding.] SNP04S-MS/RR/WM | 04-06491 | |
| 05/11/2004 | Post-Judgment Order | Filed Order/Rehearing Denied. "Rehearing denied." fn1[NRAP 40(c).] fn2[ We direct the clerk of this court to file the proper person petition for rehearing, received on April 23, 2004.] SNP04S-MS/RR/WM | 04-08760 | |
| 05/11/2004 | Post-Judgment Petition | Filed Proper Person Petition for Rehearing. | 04-07575 | |
| 06/08/2004 | Remittitur | Issued Remittitur. | 04-08905 | |
| 06/08/2004 | Case Status Update | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed. | ||
| 06/16/2004 | Remittitur | Filed Remittitur. Received by County Clerk on June 9, 2004. | 04-08905 | |
| 08/18/2004 | Notice/Incoming | Filed Notice from U.S. Supreme Court\Certiorari Denied. A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed August 2, 2004 and placed on the docket as Case No. 04-5768. | 04-14961 | |
| 10/18/2004 | Notice/Incoming | Filed Notice from U.S. Supreme Court\Certiorari Granted. The petition for a writ of ceritorari is denied. | 04-19175 | |