| 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 - 02PB0001 | Classification: | 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 | ||||
| Date | Type | Description | Pending? | Document |
| 09/30/2004 | Filing 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. | ||
| 09/30/2004 | Petition/Writ | Filed Proper Person Petition for Writ. Petition for Judicial Review. | 04-18138 | |
| 09/30/2004 | Notice/Outgoing | Issued Notice to Pay Supreme Court Filing Fee. Due Date: 10 days | ||
| 10/04/2004 | Other Incoming Document | Received Proper Person Document. Courtesy copy of document entitled, "Motion to Stay Order" filed in district court on October 1, 2004. | ||
| 11/15/2004 | Order/Dispositional | Filed 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 | |
| 12/10/2004 | Remittitur | Issued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. | 04-21179 | |
| 12/10/2004 | Case Status Update | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed. | ||