In Shaw v. Foster (L. R., 5 H. L. 321) the court said at page 338: "[T]he vendor, whom I have called the trustee, was not a mere dormant trustee, he was a trustee having a personal and substantial interest in the property, a right to protect that interest, and an active right to assert that interest if anything should be done in derogation of it.Summary of this case from Matter of De Stuers
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court's denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss for failing to comply with the requirements of NRCP 16.1.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). It is within our discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Id. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1).
It is so ORDERED.
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge
Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
Steven J. Klearman & Associates
Washoe District Court Clerk