MORRIS VS. MORRIS (FAMILY)
24-44081 · 89528 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · November 20, 2024
Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Other Family LawPosture David Morris docketed an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court on October 24, 2024, in a family law matter involving Ashley Morris. The appeal was docketed without payment of the filing fee and without a case appeal statement, prompting the court to issue notices directing compliance.
Key holdings
Practitioner summary
This is a clerk's order dismissing an appeal for failure to comply with docketing requirements under NRAP 3. The appeal was docketed October 24, 2024, without the filing fee and without the case appeal statement required by NRAP 3(e) and (f). The court issued same-day notices giving appellant 7 days to file the case appeal statement and either pay the filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 (governing in forma pauperis proceedings). Appellant did not respond. The court dismissed the appeal pursuant to NRAP 3(a)(2).
In plain language
When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they must pay a filing fee and submit a document called a "case appeal statement" - a short summary of the case identifying the parties, the lower-court ruling being appealed, and similar basic information. If a person cannot afford the fee, there is a separate procedure to ask the court to waive it. David Morris filed an appeal on October 24, 2024, but did not pay the filing fee and did not include the case appeal statement. The same day, the court sent him notices telling him he had seven days to either pay the fee (or show he qualified for a waiver) and to file the case appeal statement. The notices warned him that not paying the fee would cause his appeal to be dismissed, and that not filing the case appeal statement could also lead to dismissal. Morris did not pay the fee, did not file the case appeal statement, and did not otherwise respond to the court's notices. Because of that, the court dismissed his appeal without reaching the merits of whatever underlying family-law issue he wanted to challenge.
This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.