DAVIS VS. DIST. CT. (HEARING MASTER) (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an original writ proceeding. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging various orders in a child custody and support matter. The Court of Appeals set out the governing standards: mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction, NRS 34.320. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of writ relief, citing Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004), for the propositions that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within the court's sole discretion and that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Applying these standards, the court stated that, having considered the petition and the supporting documents, it concluded that petitioner had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted, and it denied the petition. The order does not engage in a detailed application of the writ standards to specific facts and announces no new doctrinal rule.

In plain language

This case began as a child custody and support dispute. Rather than going through a normal appeal after a final decision, Tristan Alexander Davis asked the Court of Appeals to step in directly by issuing what is called a writ - an extraordinary order from a higher court. He sought either a writ of mandamus (a court order forcing a lower court or official to do something the law requires) or a writ of prohibition (a court order stopping a lower court from acting beyond its legal authority). He used these tools to challenge several orders that had been entered in his custody and support case. The Court of Appeals explained the limited situations in which these writs are available. A writ of mandamus can be used to compel an official to perform a legal duty, or to correct an exercise of discretion that is arbitrary or capricious. A writ of prohibition is used to stop a court that is acting outside of, or without, its jurisdiction (its legal power to hear and decide a matter). The court also noted that deciding whether to even take up such a petition is entirely within its own discretion, and that the person asking for the writ carries the burden of showing that this kind of relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the documents submitted with it, the court concluded that Davis had not shown that extraordinary relief was warranted. It therefore denied the petition. The order does not explain in detail which specific custody or support orders were challenged, nor does it set out particular factual findings about the underlying dispute.