Case Information: 35419 | |||
Short Caption: | SOUTHWORTH VS. DISTRICT COURT | Court: | Supreme Court |
Related Case(s): | 34427 | ||
Lower Court Case(s): | Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - A394245 | Classification: | Original Proceeding - Civil - Prohibition |
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 |
12/30/1999 | Filing Fee | Received Filing Fee Paid on Filing. $200.00 from Barker Brown Busby Crisman & Thomas--check no. 2013. | ||
12/30/1999 | Petition/Writ | Filed Petition for Writ of Prohibition. | 99-13418 | |
12/30/1999 | Motion | Filed Motion for Stay. | 99-13420 | |
12/30/1999 | Notice/Outgoing | Issued Notice of Procedural Deficiency. Affidavit of party beneficially interested. Due Date: 10 days | 99-13451 | |
01/10/2000 | Petition/Writ | Filed Petition for Writ. Verification of Petitioner. | 00-00394 | |
01/10/2000 | Motion | Filed Response to Motion. Statement of No Opposition to Motion for Stay. | 00-00395 | |
01/21/2000 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order/Answer Writ Petition. Answer due from the real party in interest: 20 days from the date of this order. | 00-00978 | |
01/21/2000 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order. Order Granting Stay. The proceedings in District Court Case No. A394245 are hereby stayed until further order of this court. | 00-01024 | |
02/10/2000 | Petition/Writ | Filed Answer to Petition for Writ. Sherry Feibish's Response to Petitioner's Stephen Southworth's Petition for Writ of Prohibition. | 00-02113 | |
03/10/2000 | Order/Dispositional | Filed Order Denying Petition. " . . . we deny the petition." fn1[We disapprove of the district court's decision in this case to permit the real party in interest to file an amended complaint, rather than extending the time for service under NRCP 6(b). We construe that order as one extending the time for service, and conclude that the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in entering it. In light of this order, we vacate the stay of proceedings entered on January 21, 2000.] SNP99B-WM/MS/NB | 00-03773 | |
04/05/2000 | Remittitur | Issued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. | 00-05467 | |
04/05/2000 | Case Status Update | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed. |