search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record


Case Information: 39875
Short Caption:HANSEN VS. BELLCourt:Supreme Court
Related Case(s): 39809
Lower Court Case(s):Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - A451692Classification:Civil Appeal - General - Other
Disqualifications:Case Status:Remittitur Issued/Case Closed
Replacement:Panel Assigned: En Banc
To SP/Judge:SP Status:
Oral Argument:08/22/2002 at 11:00 AMOral Argument Location:Carson City
Submission Date:08/22/2002How Submitted:After Oral Argument

+ Party Information

Docket Entries
07/08/2002Filing FeeReceived Filing Fee Paid on Filing. $200.00 from Joel F. Hansen & Associates--check no. 4086.
07/08/2002Notice of Appeal DocumentsFiled Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. (Docketing statement mailed to counsel for appellant.) 02-11558
07/08/2002Notice/OutgoingIssued Notice to File Case Appeal Statement. Due Date: 10 days
07/12/2002Other Other. Returned, unfiled, Case Appeal Statement. Not filed in district court.
07/17/2002Docketing StatementFiled Docketing Statement. 02-12246
07/22/2002Notice of Appeal DocumentsFiled Case Appeal Statement. Certified copy filed in district court on: July 16, 2002. 02-12496
07/22/2002BriefFiled Opening Brief. Mailed on: Fed Ex 07/19/02. 02-12548
07/22/2002AppendixFiled Appendix to Opening Brief. 02-12549
07/23/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order. This is an appeal from an order of the district court which ordered the Clark County Registrar of Voters to remove appellant Nicholas A. Hansen's name from the ballot for the November, 2002, general election. On July 22, 2002, appellant filed and served the opening brief and appendix. Because this appeal involves a ballot question, we expedite the briefing and oral argument of this matter. fn1[Respondents John J. Cahill and Frank 'Full Time' Mahoney are proceeding in this appeal in proper person. Accordingly, they are not allowed to file written briefs or papers in this appeal. NRAP 46(b).] It appears that respondent Mitchell, having filed the challenge to appellant Hansen's candidacy and having argued in the court below in support of the challenge, has an interest in the outcome of this appeal. Similarly, because this appeal involves the interpretation of portions of the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Administrative Code governing elections, it appears that respondent Bell has an interest in the outcome of this appeal. Accordingly, respondents Bell and Mitchell shall each have until August 6, 2002, to file and serve an answering brief or inform this court that they will not be filing a brief. If an answering brief is filed, appellant shall have until August 12, 2002, to file and serve a reply brief. Further, the clerk of this court shall schedule this appeal for oral argument in Carson City before the en banc court on August 22, 2002, at the hour of 11:00 a.m. Argument shall be limited to 30 minutes. We caution respondents Bell and Mitchell that failure to file answering briefs will result in the cancellation of argument and appropriate disposition of this appeal based solely on appellant's opening brief and appendix and the record before this court. 02-12631
07/25/2002MotionFiled Motion. Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Expedited Hearing Date. 02-12731
07/29/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order Denying Motion. On July 25, 2002, appellant filed a Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Expedited Hearing Date." This court having expedited the briefing and oral argument of this matter by way of an order entered July 23, 2002, we deny appellant's motion as moot. 02-12923
08/06/2002BriefFiled Answering Brief. Mailed on: Express-No postmark. 02-13386
08/06/2002BriefFiled Answering Brief. Mailed on: Fed Ex 08/05/02. 02-13387
08/08/2002Notice/OutgoingIssued Oral Argument Reminder Notice.
08/21/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order. To date, appellant has not filed a reply brief. Appellant's failure to file a reply brief is treated as a waiver of the right to file a reply brief. The briefing of this appeal is completed. At the oral argument appellant shall not be allowed to present rebuttal argument except by permission of the court or at the request of a justice. NRAP 34(c). 02-14342
08/22/2002Case Status Update Submitted for Decision. Before the En Banc Court. En Banc.
09/06/2002Opinion/DispositionalFiled Per Curiam Opinion. "Reversed and remanded with instructions." fn9[In light of our disposition, we need not address Hansen's remaining contentions on appeal. We note that Hansen included in his appendix documents that were not part of the district court record. Although we conclude that the sanctions requested by Mitchell are not warranted, we did not consider these documents in the resolution of this appeal.] Before the Court En Banc. Per Curiam. 118 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 59. EN BANC 02-15351
10/01/2002RemittiturIssued Remittitur. 02-15403
10/01/2002Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.
10/14/2002RemittiturFiled Remittitur. Received by County Clerk on October 3, 2002. 02-15403