CLARKE VS. WHITE (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review of the notices of appeal and related filings. Although the challenged district court order encompassed child custody matters, the court took appellant at his word: his notices of appeal and his February 11, 2025 "Motion of Errata and/or Clarification of Appeal Case and Issues" each confirmed that he was "only appealing the motion to extend protection order." Applying the rule that appellate jurisdiction exists only where conferred by statute or court rule, the court held that no authority permits an appeal from a temporary protection order. The court cited Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 127 Nev. 896, 900, 266 P.3d 618, 620 (2011), for the proposition that a temporary restraining order is not appealable; In re Temp. Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989), for the proposition that an order subject to periodic mandatory review and modification is not a final, appealable order; and Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), for the general jurisdictional principle. Having found a jurisdictional defect, the court dismissed the appeal, denied appellant's outstanding motions (motion of errata/clarification, motion and amended motion for extension of time to file transcript request, and motion for extension of time to file opening brief), and directed the clerk to strike the opening brief filed April 10, 2025.

In plain language

The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Karyl Clarke's appeal because it concluded it had no power to hear it. Clarke had been involved in a family court case in Clark County that resulted in an order touching on child custody and also extending a temporary protection order against domestic violence (a short-term court order meant to keep one person away from another). Although the underlying order covered multiple subjects, Clarke made clear - both in his notices of appeal and in a follow-up filing - that he was only challenging the part extending the temporary protection order. The Supreme Court explained that it can hear an appeal only when a statute or court rule says it can. According to the court, no Nevada statute or rule allows a party to appeal from a temporary protection order. Because Clarke was appealing only from that piece of the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied Clarke's pending motions and directed the clerk to strike the opening brief he had filed on April 10, 2025.