Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.160

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act, but a discretionary decision warrants mandamus only if discretion was manifestly abused or exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

Laborers' Int'l. Union of N. America, Local 169 v. Office of the Labor Comm'r. · filed 2015-12-18

Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

A petitioner seeking mandamus under Section 34.160 must demonstrate that extraordinary, discretionary writ relief is warranted.

Shahrokhi v. Dist. Ct. (Burrow) · filed 2022-03-18

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted.

Section 34.160 permits traditional mandamus relief from a discretionary district court decision only when the court manifestly abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Richardson v. Dist. Ct. (Mulligan) · filed 2022-02-18

And, "where a district court [is] entrusted with discretion on an issue, . . . we can issue traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously." ... Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court's decision is neither clearly erroneous under NRS 38.221, nor a manifest abuse of its discretion.

Mandamus relief is discretionary, and the court generally declines to consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment when the issues can be reviewed after final judgment.

Bhatia, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter) · filed 2018-04-30

In particular, we perceive no reason to deviate from our general policy of declining to consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions for summary judgment, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997), as the underlying action has been pending since 2013 in district court and has an imminent trial setting, and it appears that the legal issues raised in the petition may be refined during further pretrial proceedings or at trial and that those issues may be adequately reviewed on an appeal from a final judgment, see Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 .P.3d at 841.

Section 34.160 does not permit mandamus to compel a political party’s central committee to choose or certify a particular nominee when that choice is discretionary.

Kelly v. Reed · filed 1960-10-07

The central committee has discretion in choosing its particular candidate. They cannot be compelled to act in a particular way, i.e., to choose or name Kelly or any other person. ... Such an act on the part of the central committee is not “an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.”

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel dismissal when the right to dismissal is clear.

State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Eighth Judicial District Court · filed 1979-10-29

Although mandamus normally is not available to review discretionary acts of a district court, Wilmurth v. District Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2d 302 (1964), statute provides that the writ may issue to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from office. NRS 34.160. When the right to a dismissal is clear, the extraordinary relief of mandamus is available to compel dismissal.

Section 34.160 makes mandamus discretionary; the court may decline to issue a writ even when the remedy is available.

STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Thompson · filed 1983-05-10

Furthermore, NRS 34.160 states that the writ "may" be issued by this court. Such language is an express indication that mandamus is a discretionary writ.

Section 34.160 makes mandamus discretionary, so the court may decline to entertain a petition even when it has power to issue the writ.

State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Thompson · filed 1983-05-10

Furthermore, NRS 34.160 states that the writ “may” be issued by this court. Such language is an express indication that mandamus is a discretionary writ.

Section 34.160 does not permit mandamus to require a trial judge to order an oral deposition before the judge has considered whether to allow it.

Greenspun v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark · filed 1975-03-28

We cannot preempt Judge McDaniel’s function by mandamus, and decide before the question is ever presented to him, that an oral deposition should necessarily be ordered forthwith in light of events and Summa’s performance subsequent to the order of November 15.

Section 34.160 does not authorize mandamus to control a district court’s discretion when the law does not specially require the requested act.

Houston General Insurance v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the Nevada · filed 1978-05-10

In the instant case, the trial court was well within its discretion in striking the amended pleadings, as the trial judge was neither “without or in excess” of his jurisdiction, or compelled to perform the requested act as the law did not “especially” enjoin him to “as a duty resulting from an office.”

Section 34.160 allows mandamus to compel a legally required duty, but does not authorize review of a trial court’s discretionary ruling.

Walton v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1978-11-10

A writ of mandate will be issued only “to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from office” (NRS 34.160), and “it is not the province of an extraordinary writ, such as prohibition or mandamus, to control the judicial discretion of a district court.” Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. District Court, 94 Nev. 247, 578 P.2d 750, 751 (1978); accord, Pinana v. District Court, 75 Nev. 74, 334 P.2d 843 (1959).

Section 34.160 gives the Nevada Supreme Court discretion whether to entertain an original petition for mandamus.

Kussman v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT, ETC. · filed 1980-06-18

The decision as to whether an application for a writ of mandate will be entertained lies within the discretion of the court. State ex rel. List v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 524 P.2d 1271 (1974). Indeed, statute declares that "the writ may be issued by the supreme court... ." NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 permits the Nevada Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus and leaves it discretion whether to entertain a petition.

Kussman v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1980-06-18

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. The decision as to whether an application for a writ of mandate will be entertained lies within the discretion of the court. State ex rel. List v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 524 P.2d 1271 (1974). Indeed, statute declares that “the writ may be issued by the supreme court. . . .” NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel a court to exercise discretion that the law requires it to exercise.

Willmes v. Reno Municipal Court · filed 2002-12-19

A writ is proper here to compel the performance of an act that the law requires.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus when discretion has been manifestly abused, and the court may exercise writ review to clarify important questions of law.

Stromberg v. Second Judicial District Court · filed 2009-01-29

“This court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office or where discretion has been manifestly abused or exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.” ... Therefore, we exercise our discretion to consider the merits of the petition.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to perform a duty imposed by law.

Friedman v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark · filed 2011-11-23

A .writ of mandamus may issue “to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.” NRS 34.160. ... As Daniel has no adequate legal remedy, we therefore grant the petition for the writs of prohibition and mandamus and direct the clerk of this court to issue alternative writs of prohibition and mandamus directing the district court to stand down from its assertion of jurisdiction in this case except to the extent permitted by NRS 125A.355(2) and to dismiss this case unless the California court declines jurisdiction in favor of Nevada.

Section 34.160 allows mandamus to secure a right from which a petitioner is unlawfully excluded, but the petitioner must establish a right to relief.

Falconi v. Secretary of State · filed 2013-04-25

For a writ of mandamus to issue, the petitioner must have some right to relief. See NRS 34.160 (providing that "[Ole writ may be issued. . . to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right. . . to which the party is entitled and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such. . . person").

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act that the law requires as a duty of an office, trust, or station.

Lavi v. Dist. Ct. (Branch Banking) · filed 2013-05-24

This court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station."

Section 34.160 permits mandamus relief when a district court manifestly abuses its discretion by refusing to consider an application it must consider.

Savage v. Third Judicial District Court · filed 2009-01-29

The district courts manifestly abused their discretion by refusing to consider petitioners’ applications for treatment. We therefore grant these petitions and direct the district courts to consider petitioners’ applications for treatment. ... ‘ ‘This court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office or where discretion has been manifestly abused or exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.’’ Redeker v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 164, 167, 127 P.3d 520, 522 (2006); see also NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus when a district court has discretion but fails to exercise it.

In Re Dd · filed 2011-07-05

A writ of mandamus may issue "to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled and from which the party is unlawfully precluded. . . ." NRS 34.160. ... One instance when we have held that such relief may be warranted is when a district court unquestionably has discretion, but fails to exercise it. ... As a result, we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF mandamus instructing the district court to vacate the order denying petitioner's request for a continuance and entering a default against petitioner, and, in the interest of avoiding further delays, we instruct the district court to set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the neglect and abuse petition.

Mandamus relief under § 34.160 requires a showing that the district court manifestly abused its discretion.

He v. District Court (Collection Services of Nev.) · filed 2013-07-24

Having reviewed this petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted as petitioners failed to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in resolving attorney fees and costs.

Section 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of a legally required duty.

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Logan D.) · filed 2013-07-25

A writ of prohibition is available to halt proceedings occurring in excess of a court's jurisdiction, NRS 34.320, while a writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an act which the law requires "as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station," NRS 34.160, or to control ... an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, see Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act required by law or to correct an abuse of discretion.

Santa Margarita Ranch v. Dist. Ct. (Tulelake Horseradish) · filed 2014-04-25

Mandamus relief is available to compel an act that is required by law or to control an abuse of discretion. NRS 34.160; see also Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act when a court has exceeded its authority.

State v. Dist. Ct. Grant (Gregory) · filed 2014-10-15

Extraordinary relief may be appropriate where a tribunal, board, or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or such relief may be used to compel the performance of an act required by law. See NRS 34.160; Newman, 97 Nev. at 603-04, 637 P.2d at 536.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to vacate a district court order when the court manifestly abuses its discretion in applying judicial estoppel.

Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson) · filed 2015-07-01

The district court therefore manifestly abused its discretion in concluding that Grand Canal was judicially estopped from contesting its liability to Cole Wilson. ... Accordingly, our intervention is warranted, and we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its November 21, 2014, order regarding Cole Wilson's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus relief when the district court exercised its discretion without abusing it.

State v. Dist. Ct. (Maddox) · filed 2014-07-28

Having considered the petition and the supplement to the petition, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844; see also NRAP 21(b). The district court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law reflect the exercise of discretion, not its abuse.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus relief when a district court manifestly abuses its discretion in ordering discovery.

Richards (Bobby) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2016-01-28

We conclude that Richards' petition has demonstrated that our intervention is warranted because the district court manifestly abused its discretion in ordering disclosure of the correspondence.

Section 34.160 permits the court to entertain a mandamus petition when resolving it may affect the litigation and clarify important legal issues.

John Peter Lee, Ltd. v. Dist. Ct. (70 Limited P'ship) · filed 2016-01-22

We conclude that resolving this writ petition may affect the course of the litigation, thus promoting sound judicial economy and administration. Moreover, this petition raises important legal issues in need of clarification, which could resolve or mitigate related litigation. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to entertain JPLL's petition for mandamus.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an inferior state tribunal to perform a legally required act.

Garcia v. Dist. Ct. (State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.) · filed 2016-03-18

A writ of mandamus is available to compel legally-required action by an inferior state tribunal, but the writ generally will not issue when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

Section 34.160 generally does not warrant mandamus intervention before the district court decides the issue or to interfere with its control of the calendar.

Hemmer v. Dist. Ct. (Barger) · filed 2016-11-23

In particular, petitioner has represented that he will file a motion seeking similar relief in the district court, we generally decline to entertain petitions when the district court has yet to decide a particular issue, and we generally decline to interfere with the district court's control of its calendar. ... Accordingly, our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted, see NRS 34.160; NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Section 34.160 allows the court to deny mandamus when extraordinary writ intervention is unwarranted.

United States Bowling Cong. v. Dist. Ct. (Calhoon) · filed 2017-05-09

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted at this time.

Section 34.160 permits discretionary mandamus review when an important legal issue needs clarification and judicial economy warrants intervention, even if an appeal is available.

HIGH NOON AT ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N VS. DIST. CT. (D.R. HORTON, INC.) · filed 2017-09-27

However, even when an adequate and speedy remedy exists, this court may exercise its discretion when an important issue of law needs clarification and sound judicial economy warrants intervention. ... Therefore, we exercise our discretion to entertain the petition.

Section 34.160 makes mandamus an extraordinary, discretionary remedy that the court may deny without deciding the merits of the underlying claim.

Frohlich (Joseph) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2017-06-28

Having reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we are not persuaded our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991).

Section 34.160 permits discretionary mandamus review of an order denying summary judgment when clear authority requires dismissal and important legal issues and judicial economy favor review.

STATE, DEP'T. OF TRANSP. VS. DIST. CT. (NASSIRI) · filed 2017-09-27

In particular as to orders denying summary judgment, we usually decline to consider writ petitions challenging such orders, except that we may choose to exercise our discretion to hear a petition "where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action." ... Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to address NDOT's petition.

Section 34.160 permits the court to deny mandamus relief when extraordinary intervention is unwarranted.

Kneesel, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Gibson) · filed 2017-01-13

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our discretionary and extraordinary intervention is warranted.

Section 34.160 permits traditional mandamus to control a district court’s discretionary decision only when the court manifestly abuses its discretion or acts arbitrarily or capriciously.

WALKER VS. DIST. CT. (MICHAELS) · filed 2020-12-10

Where a district court is entrusted with discretion on an issue, the petitioner's burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action by that court is substantial; we can issue traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

State v. Dist. Ct. (Greene (Travers)) · filed 2018-06-18

"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." Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, but the petitioner must demonstrate that such intervention is warranted.

Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2019-10-24

We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the petition.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Felder (Kenneth) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2019-10-24

Further, even assuming that an appeal was not a speedy remedy in this case, we conclude that the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion in denying the petition filed below.

Section 34.160 allows mandamus to address an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, but the petitioner must demonstrate that the district court acted that way.

Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State) · filed 2020-04-15

And petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the renewed motion to dismiss the indictment.

Section 34.160 requires petitioners seeking mandamus relief to demonstrate that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Schneider (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2020-05-15

Further, petitioners have not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the pretrial petition and supplemental pleadings.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus relief when the petitioner fails to show that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Vasquez-Montano Vs. Dist. Ct. (Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., Llc) · filed 2020-07-28

We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted, because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying petitioner's motion to recuse or disqualify.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus relief for an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, but the petitioner must demonstrate that conduct.

Anthony L. Barney, Ltd. Vs. Dist. Ct. (In Re: Guardianship Of Dosch) · filed 2020-09-18

As it pertains to the Dosch case, having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying petitioner's motion to strike.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a discretionary act only if the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion.

Levin Vs. Dist. Ct. (Mines) · filed 2019-10-23

When a petitioner seeks to compel a discretionary act, as Levin does here, this court may not issue a writ of mandamus unless the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a discretionary act only when the petitioner shows that the lower court manifestly abused its discretion or exercised it arbitrarily or capriciously.

State Vs. Eclectic Servs., Inc. · filed 2019-11-01

A court may issue mandamus "to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station." NRS 34.160. ... Because Eclectic failed to carry its burden, the district court lacked the necessary grounds to grant mandamus compelling a discretionary act.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, but the petitioner must demonstrate that exercise.

Reed (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2019-07-11

We conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion in denying his motion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion when the petitioner shows that extraordinary relief is warranted.

Merrell (Samantha) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2019-07-11

We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the justice court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to recuse/disqualify.

Mandamus may be denied when the petitioner fails to show that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion.

Reed v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State · filed 2019-07-11

This pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges Judge Michael Villani's order denying petitioner's motion to recuse Judge William Kephart for bias or prejudice. We conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion in denying his motion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion when the petitioner demonstrates that extraordinary relief is warranted.

Merrell v. Baucum · filed 2019-07-11

We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the justice court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to recuse/disqualify.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to address an arbitrary or capricious exercise of district court discretion.

Smith (Mark) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2019-07-29

We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion; a petitioner must demonstrate such an exercise to obtain relief.

Middleton (David) Vs. Dist. Ct. (Warden) · filed 2019-10-11

This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion to disqualify the Washoe County District Attorney's Office (WCDA) and an order determining that the ethical screen was adequate. We conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion in these matters.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus relief from a discretionary bail ruling unless the petitioner shows that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Radonski (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2019-05-15

We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to modify bail.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to correct a discretionary ruling when the district court manifestly abuses its discretion or acts arbitrarily or capriciously.

Boyack v. Dist. Ct. (Thompson) · filed 2019-04-25

"[Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."

Section 34.160 permits mandamus when a board exercises its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously.

County of Clark v. Atlantic Seafoods, Inc. · filed 1980-07-29

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy when discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. ... Because the board capriciously ignored the standards and criteria set forth in § 8.20.010(b), the district judge did not err by issuing the permanent writ of mandate.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel dismissal when clear law requires it and the district court’s refusal is a manifest abuse of discretion.

Advanced Countertop Design, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court · filed 1999-09-23

We conclude the district court manifestly abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss Tenney’s tort claim. Accordingly, we grant this petition. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 637 P.2d 534 (1981) (a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control a court’s arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Office of Washoe County District Attorney v. Second Judicial District Court of Nevada · filed 2000-08-18

A writ of mandamus will issue to control a court’s arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Section 34.160 allows mandamus to compel a legally required act or control a manifest abuse of discretion.

State Ex Rel. Masto v. SECOND JUDICIAL DIST. CT. · filed 2009-01-29

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or control a manifest abuse of discretion.

State v. Second Judicial District Court · filed 2009-01-29

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel a legally required duty or correct a manifest abuse of discretion or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Sims v. Eighth Judicial District Court · filed 2009-04-30

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 a manifest abuse of discretion or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Liapis v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Washoe · filed 2012-08-09

“A writ of mandamus is available to compel 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.” Millen v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 1245, 1250, 148 P.3d 694, 698 (2006); see NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel a legally required duty or remedy an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark · filed 2012-12-27

A writ of mandamus may be issued to compel action that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to remedy an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). ... Because the district court erred in failing to conduct an NRCP 23 analysis, we grant the writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to conduct a proper NRCP 23 analysis, and we deny Beazer Homes’ petition as it pertains to a writ of prohibition.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Aspen Financial Services, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark · filed 2012-12-06

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.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus to control a lower court’s discretion when that court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.

Clark County Department of Family Services v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Cl · filed 2012-12-27

Accordingly, the juvenile court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and thus, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus to control a discretionary action when evidence supports the action and it was not arbitrary or capricious.

Washington v. Nev. Dept. of Corrections · filed 2013-03-15

A review of appellant's proper person appeal statement and the appellate record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's writ petition. City of Reno, 119 Nev. at 58, 63 P.3d at 1148. Namely, the district court determined that appellant had an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, the district court determined that evidence supported the disciplinary action taken against appellant and that, as such, respondent did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. NRS 34.160; International Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558.

Section 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel performance of a legal duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Clay v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark · filed 2013-07-11

A writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an act that the law requires “as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station,” NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, see Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Abbey, Jr. v. Dist. Ct. (Goldfield 20) · filed 2013-09-18

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Section 34.160 allows mandamus to compel a legally required duty arising from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Little v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2013-10-17

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.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Pn II v. Dist. Ct. (Woods) · filed 2014-04-23

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... Thus, the district court was not clearly required to grant the relief that petitioner is now seeking.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty arising from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Dornbach v. Dist. Ct. (Porter) · filed 2014-05-08

"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."

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Dornbach v. Dist. Ct. (Ehe, Lp) · filed 2014-05-08

"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."

Section 34.160 allows mandamus to compel an act required by law or to control a manifest abuse of discretion.

State v. Dist. Ct. Tanner (Geoffrey) · filed 2014-05-13

Rather, the State's contention more appropriately falls within the scope of mandamus, and we elect to construe the State's pleading as a petition for a writ of mandamus, which is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel performance of a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Baca v. Dist. Ct. (Stately) · filed 2014-06-12

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. NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556,558 (2008).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Casallas v. Dist. Ct. (Advanced Countertop Design, Inc.) · filed 2014-07-23

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.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion; relief requires a showing that the court acted that way.

Reddy v. Dist. Ct. (Davis) · filed 2014-04-21

Although petitioners argue that the district court's decision to deny the motion was not based on reason, but rather on a preference for maintaining the trial date, the documents provided to this court do not support this argument or demonstrate that the district court otherwise acted arbitrarily or capriciously under the circumstances.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control a district court's arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Imperial Credit Corporation v. Dist. Ct. (Leerad, Lp) · filed 2014-06-13

And a writ of mandamus is available to control a district court's arbitrary or capricious exercise of its discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control a district court's arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Imperial Credit v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2014-08-07

A writ of mandamus is available to control a district court's arbitrary or capricious exercise of its discretion. Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (Crutcher) · filed 2014-07-24

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. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Mudd v. Dist. Ct. (Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P.) · filed 2014-08-28

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or address an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Sove (Danielle) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2014-09-18

Extraordinary relief may be appropriate where a tribunal, board, or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or such relief may be used to compel the performance of an act required by law. ... We conclude that writ review is unwarranted.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion.

Southern Highlands Community Assoc. v. Dist. Ct. (Prem Deferred Trust) C/W 62587 · filed 2014-11-10

Mandamus relief is available to compel an act that is required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Polk v. Nev. Corrections Dept. · filed 2014-11-14

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. NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a duty arising from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Polk v. Bd. of Prison Comm'rs. · filed 2014-11-14

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.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Foothills Pediatrics, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Heath) · filed 2014-12-22

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits writ relief to compel an act required by law or address arbitrary or capricious action; relief is unwarranted without a showing that the challenged action meets that standard.

Taitano (Ronald) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2014-09-18

Extraordinary relief may be appropriate where a tribunal, board, or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or such relief may be used to compel the performance of an act required by law. ... We conclude that writ review is unwarranted.

A petitioner seeking mandamus relief from a district court’s discretionary decision must demonstrate that the court acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Angeles v. Dist. Ct. (Cardona) · filed 2014-10-17

Having considered petitioner's arguments and the documents before this court, we conclude that petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; NRAP 21(b).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control a district court's discretion when the petitioner demonstrates that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily and capriciously.

Martinez-Orellano (Rogelio) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2015-07-21

We decline to exercise our original jurisdiction because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to correct an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, including an unduly harsh remedy for counsel's missed filing deadline.

Hoffman (Craig) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2015-09-11

While we reject Hoffman's equitable estoppel and notice arguments and disagree with Hoffman regarding a filing-deadline for a supplemental petition, see NRS 34.750(3) (providing for 30 days from the date of appointment to file a supplemental petition), we agree that the remedy chosen by the district court was unduly harsh to Hoffman and was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus when a juvenile court allows the State to cure a summons defect and does not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying dismissal.

TIRIKOS VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) · filed 2015-09-24

While we do not condone the State's failure to timely serve a summons on Joanna before the original adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court did not exceed its jurisdiction or act arbitrarily or capriciously by denying Joanna's motion to dismiss.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Shoen v. State Bar of Nevada · filed 2015-11-06

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.

NRS 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel a legally required act or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Piroozi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2015-12-31

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... Thus, we grant the petition and order the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the portion of its pretrial order that conflicts with this decision and to enter a new order holding that petitioners may argue to the jury that a portion of Hurst and Abbington's damages was caused by the settled defendants and include those defendants' names on the jury verdict form for the purpose of allocating liability among all defendants.

Section 34.160 provides extraordinary, discretionary mandamus relief when a district court arbitrarily or capriciously abuses its discretion.

Kotha v. Dist. Ct. (Mantena) · filed 2016-01-14

Having considered the arguments raised in the petition, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion in granting the motion so as to warrant our extraordinary and discretionary intervention.

NRS 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Summerlin Hospital Med. Ctr., LLC v. Costa · filed 2016-01-22

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.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or control a district court's manifest abuse of discretion.

Michalowski v. Dist. Ct. (Lennar Reno, LLC) · filed 2015-11-18

However, mandamus affords interlocutory appellate review where the party seeking extraordinary writ relief demonstrates that: (1) an eventual appeal does not afford "a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law," and (2) mandamus is needed either to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control the district court's manifest abuse of discretion.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required act or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

HERNANDEZ VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) · filed 2016-01-07

A writ of mandamus is available "to compel the performance of an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus relief from a district court’s discretionary ruling when the petitioner fails to show that the court acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Stevenson v. the First Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2016-01-14

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis so as to warrant writ relief.

Section 34.160 allows mandamus review of a discretionary ruling when the district court exercises its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously.

Alper v. Dist. Ct. (Plise) · filed 2016-02-12

Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the motion for contempt.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion; the writ was unwarranted where the district court's decision was neither.

Bowles (Demans) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2016-06-10

Further, the district court did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to recuse.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

HAIRR VS. DIST. CT. (LOPEZ) · filed 2016-03-10

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.

A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must show that the challenged decision was an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion or identify authority supporting an entitlement to relief.

Samuell v. the Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2016-03-18

Petitioner has not shown how this decision was an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion and he has not otherwise identified any authority supporting an entitlement to relief.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus intervention against an order granting leave to amend when the district court did not arbitrarily and capriciously abuse its discretion.

Agbasi, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Johnson) · filed 2016-03-18

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously abused its discretion in granting leave to amend so as to warrant our extraordinary and discretionary intervention.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a duty required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

SPARKS (LAWRENCE) VS. BARE · filed 2016-06-16

“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.”

Section 34.160 permits discretionary mandamus relief for a district court decision when the court arbitrarily and capriciously abuses its discretion.

Michael v. Dist. Ct. (Sunrise Lv I, LLC) · filed 2016-07-13

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously abused its discretion so as to warrant our extraordinary and discretionary intervention.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus relief when the petitioner fails to show that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion.

Everi Holdings, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Chary) · filed 2016-09-16

Having considered the petition and appendix filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion. ... Accordingly, our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted, see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; ... NRAP 21(b)(1); ... and we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Section 34.160 requires a mandamus petitioner challenging a court order to demonstrate an arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion.

Ferlingere v. Justice Court of Canal Twp. Cty. of Lyon · filed 2016-09-16

Having considered the papers presented, we conclude that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the justice court exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion in entering the challenged order.

Mandamus relief under NRS 34.160 is discretionary and may be denied when the challenged ruling is neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to clearly established law.

Jmr Cabinet Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (Hammer) · filed 2016-12-02

Based on the petition, answer, reply, and current record, we are not persuaded that the district court's determination was arbitrary and capricious or in contravention of clearly established law such that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Lerner v. Fischer (State Bar of Nevada) · filed 2016-10-12

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted at this time.

Section 34.160 provides for extraordinary, discretionary mandamus relief when the challenged reasoning is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to clearly established law.

Marshalls of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bredeson) · filed 2016-11-18

Based on the petition and the appendix provided,' we are not persuaded that the district court's reasoning was arbitrary or capricious or in contravention of clearly established law such that our ... extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Mkhitaryan (Sergey) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2016-10-13

"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." ... We conclude that petitioner fails to demonstrate that Judge Barker abused his discretion in denying the motion for disqualification.

Mandamus relief is unwarranted when the petitioner fails to show that the lower court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously.

Guerrero v. Dist. Ct. (Washoe Cty. Dep't of Soc. Serv.'s) · filed 2016-11-18

Petitioner has not shown that the district court's order that the child remain in protective custody constituted an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Mandamus under § 34.160 is unavailable to challenge a district court’s administrative remand when the petitioner has not shown that the court acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Key v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles) · filed 2016-12-16

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously or exceeded its jurisdiction when it remanded the matter to the administrative agency for a new hearing to cure a violation of petitioner's right to confront a declarant.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus when a district court order reflects an arbitrary or capricious exercise or manifest abuse of discretion.

Alexander (Demetri) v. State · filed 2017-01-12

We also are not• convinced that the district court's order reflects an arbitrary or capricious exercise or manifest abuse of the district court's discretion that warrants a writ of mandamus. See NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (explaining when mandamus is available).

Section 34.160 requires a petitioner seeking mandamus relief from a discretionary ruling to show that the district court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously.

State v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez (Jessica)) · filed 2017-01-12

We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion.

Section 34.160 does not warrant mandamus relief from a discretionary ruling unless the petitioner shows that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

State v. Dist. Ct. (Aguilera-Herrera (Francisco)) · filed 2017-01-12

We conclude that extraordinary relief is unwarranted because petitioner has not demonstrated the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion.

A petitioner seeking mandamus under § 34.160 to challenge a district court's discretionary ruling must show that the court acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Stovall v. the Second Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2017-06-15

In particular, petitioner has not demonstrated that the respondent district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to perform a duty required by law.

Kabew v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2024-03-28

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law ... requires as a duty resulting from an office or to control a manifest or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the district court failed to perform a duty required by law.

Section 34.160 permits extraordinary mandamus relief only when the petitioner demonstrates a clear legal right to the requested remedy.

Caruso (Samuel) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2022-05-18

Instead, we deny extraordinary relief because Caruso has not demonstrated that he had a clear legal right to the only remedy Caruso sought in district court.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legal duty only when the petitioner is legally entitled to the requested act.

Van Leuven Vs. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. Of Nev. · filed 2021-12-23

A writ of mandamus is available to compel a legal duty to act, but only if the petitioner is legally entitled to have the act done, see NRS 34.160, and "the petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy." Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020).

Section 34.160 requires a mandamus petitioner to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.

Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2021-06-10

We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not met his substantial burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested.

Section 34.160 requires a mandamus petitioner to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.

Gamboa (Jaquan) v. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2022-03-17

We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not met his substantial burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a legally required duty, so it cannot compel participation when no such duty exists.

WASHOE CTY. D.A.'S OFF. VS. THE SECOND JUD. DIST. CT. C/W 80008/80009 · filed 2020-10-08

However, a writ of mandamus is appropriate "to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station," NRS 34.160, and if the Washoe County DA has no duty to participate in a record-sealing petition, a writ of mandamus compelling the Washoe County DA to do so would be ineffective.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus only to compel an act the respondent has a legal duty to perform.

Rippo (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) · filed 2021-02-16

First, the respondents do not have a legal duty to transmit the judgment of conviction to the Director, cf. NRS 176.325-.335 (addressing transmission of judgment of conviction), and therefore cannot be compelled to do so through a writ of mandamus.

Section 34.160 requires an unmistakable duty to act, or a manifest abuse of discretion in disregarding that duty, for mandamus to lie.

Kerkorian Vs. The Governor Of Nevada · filed 2020-04-30

Without an unmistakable duty to act—or a manifest abuse of discretion in disregarding such a duty—mandamus does not lie.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a duty imposed by law, but a writ cannot issue before the duty is triggered.

State, Dep'T Of Health And Human Serv.'S Vs. Porsboll · filed 2019-09-12

NRS 34.160 provides that a district court may issue a writ "to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." ... The district court therefore erred in issuing the writ of mandamus compelling CSEP to act because Porsboll had not submitted an application for services triggering CSEPs duty to act under NRS 130.307.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to perform a legal duty, including applying a required statutory presumption.

Mulkern v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev. · filed 2018-10-18

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act required by law or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... We grant petitioners' petition, in part, and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to apply the rebuttable sibling presumption under NRS 432B.550(5) in determining the placement of Baby Girl W.

Section 34.160 requires a petitioner seeking mandamus to show a legal duty to perform the requested act.

Leibowitz v. Dist. Ct. (Hunt) · filed 2018-12-11

Because petitioners have not adequately developed those issues, they have not demonstrated at this juncture that the district court was required by this court's mandate in Docket No. 70094 or by law to order the real party in interest to return the money obtained in executing the vacated judgment confirming the arbitration award.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act required by law; the petitioner must identify a legal basis requiring the requested act.

Thompson v. the Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. · filed 2017-10-13

Although petitioner disagrees with the committee's decision and asserts that his actions in seeking payment of his fee were appropriate under the short trial rules, he has not pointed to any controlling law or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion that would mandate his retention on the short trial judge panel, such that mandamus relief would be appropriate.

Section 34.160 provides no mandamus relief against an officer who has no remaining duty to perform.

Center of Hope Christian Fellowship v. Sheriff, Washoe Co. (Dcr Real Estate Iii Sub I) · filed 2013-03-15

Accordingly, there is nothing that this court can mandate the Sheriff to do, or prohibit the Sheriff from doing. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel payment of an undisputed state salary when payment is an official duty and the remaining question is whether the employment is lawful.

State ex rel. Armstrong v. State Board of Examiners · filed 1962-12-03

The writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, and shall be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.160 and 34.170. ... If advised that her employment in the unclassified service of the state is lawful, payment of her salary would follow as a duty resulting from office and especially enjoined by law.

Section 34.160 does not permit mandamus to compel an election certificate when an unauthorized recount creates no duty for the county clerk.

Kelly v. Murphy · filed 1963-01-02

We conclude that the so-called “recount” was a futile act, undertaken without lawful authorization. Accordingly, no duty devolved upon the Nye County Clerk by reason of said recount, and mandamus will not lie.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to perform a duty imposed by law, including entering summary judgment when the court has no discretion to deny it.

Dzack v. Marshall · filed 1964-06-25

NRS 34.160 however provides that the writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. ... We have concluded that where it is shown that the liability of a defendant in a tort action depends entirely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior and the matter of the agency is positively denied under oath and the plaintiff admits having no knowledge of the agency or of any documentary evidence which would tend to show the agency, and no knowledge of any witness who would testify to such agency, under such circumstances NRCP 56(e) makes it the duty of the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of such defendant. Its act therefore in ruling on a motion for summary judgment under these circumstances is not discretionary.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a county to make a payment required by law when the county has no discretion to refuse.

State Ex Rel. List v. County of Douglas · filed 1974-07-22

One function of a writ of mandate is to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. NRS 34.160. The Compact provides that each county in Nevada “shall pay” the sum allotted to it by the Agency. Art. VII(a). No discretion is granted to the counties. Payment, therefore, is a duty enjoined by law and amenable to the remedy of mandamus.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel compliance with a nondiscretionary legal duty.

Nevada State Personnel Division v. Haskins · filed 1974-12-20

Far from having “discretion” to nullify the hearing officer’s order, the Advisory Commission was under a nondiscretionary duty not to interfere with that right, which the law declares final unless changed following a hearing de novo. Thus, we deem mandamus proper to compel compliance with appellants’ legal duties. NRS 34.160; State ex rel. List v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 282, 524 P.2d 1271, 1277 (1974).

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an official act that the law makes a duty, including approval of a reasonable budget request when the board’s consent has become a duty.

Young v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF PERSHING CTY. · filed 1975-01-29

Mandamus is appropriate to compel an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty of office. NRS 34.160. When the petitioner’s budgetary requests were stipulated as being reasonable, the board’s consent became a duty.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an agency to perform a legally required duty, even when the agency retains discretion over the result.

Southwest Gas Corp. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N OF NEV. · filed 1976-01-28

Having concluded that the application was improperly dismissed, as will be discussed more fully below, mandamus is clearly proper to compel the reinstatement and further consideration of the application in Docket No. 529. This proceeding does not seek to control the result that may be reached by the Commission after reinstatement and consideration of the application, but only to compel the Commission to act, as it is required to do by NRS Chapter 704.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an official to perform a duty imposed by law.

Russell v. Thompson · filed 1980-11-19

The writ of mandate is proper to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, and where there exists no plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus only to compel an act that the law especially enjoins as a duty.

Jeaness v. Second Judicial District Court · filed 1981-04-10

A writ of mandamus is issued only to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. Lewis v. Smart, 96 Nev. 846, 619 P.2d 1212 (1980); NRS 34.160. ... We cannot find in this record support for a finding that either judge has failed to perform an act especially enjoined or that either should be restrained for having exceeded his jurisdiction. The writ must be denied.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a public officer to perform a legally required duty.

State Bar of Nevada v. List · filed 1981-08-13

Mandamus will lie to compel a public officer to perform an act “which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,” NRS 34.160. ... Mandamus will therefore lie to compel the governor to perform this duty at the suit of any citizen instituted to enforce compliance with the law, State of Nevada v. Gracey, 11 Nev. 223 (1876), if the act creating the vacancies is constitutional.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.

Faessel v. Second Judicial District Court · filed 1990-02-22

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS 34.160. Because the district court was obligated to afford Faessel a preliminary examination under the circumstances of this case, we grant Faessel’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to dismiss an indictment when the court has a legal duty to do so.

Ostman v. Eighth Judicial District Court · filed 1991-08-27

A writ of mandamus may issue "to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station... ." NRS 34.160. ... The district court therefore had a duty to dismiss petitioner's indictment. See Frank, 103 Nev. at 165, 734 P.2d at 1244. It failed to do so. ... We conclude, therefore, that under the facts of this case, relief is warranted. Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act the law requires as a duty of office, trust or station.

Independent American Party v. Lau · filed 1994-09-28

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty and which results from an office, trust or station. NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we grant this petition.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a court to perform an absolute duty, including a duty to allow intervention.

State Industrial Insurance System v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark · filed 1995-01-24

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the district court had an absolute duty to allow SIIS’s intervention in Axas’ lawsuit. Accordingly, we grant this petition.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an act that the law requires as a duty of an office, trust, or station.

Lewis v. Smart · filed 1980-12-03

A writ of mandamus is issued to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus when the respondent has a clear, present legal duty to act.

Round Hill General Improvement District v. Newman · filed 1981-12-18

A writ of mandamus will issue when the respondent has a clear, present legal duty to act.

Section 34.160 permits a writ of mandamus to compel a court to perform a required duty, including filing pleadings it improperly refused to accept.

Barnes v. Eighth Judicial District Court · filed 1988-01-22

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... Accordingly, the clerk of this court shall issue a writ of mandamus in each of the above-entitled cases directing respondent to file petitioners’ pleadings and to refrain from enforcing NRS 12.015 insofar as that statute requires indigent persons to obtain, as a condition to obtaining a waiver of filing fees, the certificate of an attorney that the indigent has a meritorious cause of action or defense.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel the Legislature as a body to perform its constitutional duties, while relief against individual officials requires a violation of their duties.

Governor v. Nevada State Legislature · filed 2003-07-10

Because we conclude that the individual legislators and the Lieutenant Governor have not violated their constitutional duties, we deny the petition as to them as individuals. We grant the petition as to the Legislature as a body. We order the Legislature to fulfill its obligations under the Constitution of Nevada by raising sufficient revenues to fund education while maintaining a balanced budget. ... Therefore, we grant the petition in part and order the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Legislature of the State of Nevada to proceed expeditiously with the 20th Special Session under simple majority rule.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to perform a duty required by law, including dismissing a case it improperly entertained.

Harvey L. Lerer, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1995-08-24

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS 34.160. ... We conclude, then, that the district court was obligated as a matter of law to refuse to entertain Smith's motion under NRS 18.015. ... Because the district court improperly entertained Smith's motion to adjudicate an attorney's lien in case No. A275604, the clerk of this court shall issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the case and vacate the orders issued in connection therewith.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel an official to perform a duty required by law.

Mays v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1995-08-24

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... Here, the district court had an absolute duty to order the Department of Prisons to credit petitioner with his prior parole and to recalculate his sentence on this basis.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to perform a legal duty, including correcting an erroneous habitual criminal adjudication.

Crutcher v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1995-10-04

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 637 P.2d 534 (1981). We conclude that the district court had a duty to grant Crutcher’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that he was erroneously adjudicated a habitual criminal and to sentence Crutcher pursuant to the original informations filed by the state.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel performance of a duty required by law.

Panko v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada · filed 1995-12-19

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ... We conclude that the district court had a duty, under SCR 48.1, to strike Desert Custom’s second peremptory challenge and petitioners do not have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. ... Accordingly, we grant this petition.

Section 34.160 permits mandamus to compel a district court to vacate a ruling and reconsider a motion under the proper legal standard.

Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada · filed 1997-12-17

Therefore, mandamus is an appropriate remedy. See NRS 34.160 (mandamus will issue to compel act enjoined by law); NRS 34.170 (mandamus will issue if a petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law). Accordingly, we grant this petition. The clerk of this court shall issue a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to vacate its order denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss Chang’s cross-claim, and to reconsider that motion in light of the views expressed in this opinion.