judyrecords
search tips
630 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record

CLAPP VS. DIST. CT. (HICKOCK)

Case Information: 44022
Short Caption:CLAPP VS. DIST. CT. (HICKOCK)Court:Supreme Court
Related Case(s): 40107 , 40623
Lower Court Case(s):Douglas Co. - Ninth Judicial District - 02PB0001Classification: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
09/30/2004Filing Fee Filing Fee due. 11/15/04 Order-fn6: we deny petitioner's current request to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee constitutes an independent basis for denying this petition.
09/30/2004Petition/WritFiled Proper Person Petition for Writ. Petition for Judicial Review. 04-18138
09/30/2004Notice/OutgoingIssued Notice to Pay Supreme Court Filing Fee. Due Date: 10 days
10/04/2004Other Incoming DocumentReceived Proper Person Document. Courtesy copy of document entitled, "Motion to Stay Order" filed in district court on October 1, 2004.
11/15/2004Order/DispositionalFiled Order Denying Petition. for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. "We deny the petition." fn6[Although petitioner was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the proper person documents received from her. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee required by NRS 2.250, but has filed a letter requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We take judicial notice of the fact that appellant paid the filing fee in an earlier appeal in Docket No. 40107, she posted a $250 cost bond in Docket No. 40623, and this court denied her motion to proceed in forma pauperis in Docket No. 40623. Accordingly, we deny petitioner's current request to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee constitutes an independent basis for denying this petition. Finally, the petitioner's request for return of her cost bond is a matter properly addressed by the district court in which the bond has been posted.] NNP04-NB/DA/MG 04-20896
12/10/2004RemittiturIssued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. 04-21179
12/10/2004Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.