green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
103.0 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, 2019–2024 ·
…a writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.
at p. 1141
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
URIAS (BRANDON) v. DIST. CT. (STATE) (CRIMINAL)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
if it is determined that the act complained of was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, our inquiry stops even if the decision or order was incorrect.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CHASING HORSE (NATHAN) v. DIST. CT. (STATE)
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
a writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
a writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Diaz (Jose) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited "see"
this court has often stated that the inquiry upon a petition for a writ of certiorari is limited to whether the inferior tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salazar (Antonio) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980). 22- Zo is one founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason, or contrary to the evidence or established rules of law.” State v. Highth Judicial Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Salazar (Antonio) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bonetti (James) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, SUPREME COURT 1141 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CEGAVSKE v. HOLLOWOOD (BALLOT ISSUE)
(2×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287 , 289- 90, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dist. Ct. (Plumlee (Jennifer)) C/W 82249
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dist. Ct. (Plumlee (Jennifer)) C/W 82249
(5×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Caruso (Samuel) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd (Zane) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd (Zane) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mcguinness (Daniel) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding "To the extent petitioner challenges an administrative order directing pretrial testing of all out-of-custody defendants before arraignment and sentencing, we decline to consider such a challenge because petitioner was not tested pursuant to the administrative order.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mcguinness (Daniel) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding "To the extent petitioner challenges an administrative order directing pretrial testing of all out-of-custody defendants before arraignment and sentencing, we decline to consider such a challenge because petitioner was not tested pursuant to the administrative order.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey (Jayshawn) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony-Smith (Victor) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Election Integrity Project Of Nev., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Cegavske)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weller Vs. Dist. Ct. (Riley)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"); see also NRS 34.320. what Riley described as false and defamatory statements regarding her.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schneider (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and deterxnine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bishop (Cadesha) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Khaira (Mondier) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (A writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown (Louis) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, - 1, (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32 , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (recognizing that an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one that is contrary to the evidence or established rules of law); Goicoechea v. District Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (A writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Black, Jr. (Bret) Vs. Dist. Ct. (Langer)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (A writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and deterinine the matter under consideration.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GATHRITE (DEANDRE) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 3 DISCUSSION A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty arising from an office, trust, or station, or to control a manifest abuse or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Butcher (Mark) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980). 2 Butcher to trigger the agreement's drop-down provision in either of two ways: (1) successfully completing probation and having no adverse contacts with law enforcement; or (2) if probation was not granted, having no adverse contacts with law enforcement for three years.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Padilla (Raymond) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"); see also NRS 34.320. ' '+ Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez (Alonso) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"); see also NRS 34.320.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE VS. DIST. CT. (HEARN (MATTHEW))
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that a writ of prohibition will not lie if the court "had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). 3 This statute was amended after Hearn was deemed eligible for the program but prior to his sentencing date.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE VS. DIST. CT. (HEARN (MATTHEW))
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that a writ of prohibition will not lie if the court "had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). 3 This statute was amended after Hearn was deemed eligible for the program but prior to his sentencing date.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BROWN (WILLIS) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"), and certiorari is unavailable because Brown does not argue that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or ruled on the constitutionality or validity of a statute, see NRS 34.020(2), (3).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
BROWN (WILLIS) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"), and certiorari is unavailable because Brown does not argue that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or ruled on the constitutionality or validity of a statute, see NRS 34.020(2), (3).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Angius & Terry LLP v. Dist. Ct. (Vista Del Sur Townhouse Ass'n)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that we will not issue a SUPREME COURT OF writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to NEVADA hear and determine the matter under consideration"). (0) 1.947A 17 counsel to litigate a dispute, retained new counsel, and settled the underlying litigation with the assistance of new counsel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown (Willis) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"), and certiorari is unavailable because petitioner does not argue that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or ruled on the constitutionality or validity of a statute, see NRS 34.020(2), (3).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gittins (Candace) v. Logan
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289-90 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN. VS. JUSTICE CT. (ESCALANTE)
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN. VS. JUSTICE CT. (ESCALANTE)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker (James) v. Dist. Ct. (Warden)
NRS 34.320; Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist, Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE VS. DIST. CT. SCHNEIDER (JENNIFER)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"); see also NRS 34.320.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE VS. DIST. CT. SCHNEIDER (JENNIFER)
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"); see also NRS 34.320.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wang, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Williams) C/W 65877
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that this court will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). 2 The Legislature amended NRS 41A.071 during the 2015 legislative session. 2015 Nev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE, DEP'T OF TRANSP. VS. DIST. CT. (JORGENSON & KOKA, LLP)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE, DEP'T OF TRANSP. VS. DIST. CT. (JORGENSON & KOKA, LLP)
(3×)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nev. Checker Cab Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (Ferentz)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). 2 In 2015, the Legislature increased the jurisdictional limit of the justice court to $15,000. 2015 Nev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Peter Lee, Ltd. v. Dist. Ct. (70 Limited P'ship)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Summerlin Hospital Med. Ctr., LLC v. Costa
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (explaining that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.R. HORTON, INC. VS. DIST. CT. (ARLINGTON RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS'N.)
Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289 , 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (stating that we will not issue a writ of prohibition "if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JESS GOICOECHEA and JOE JUARISTI, Petitioners,
v.
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELKO, and the JUSTICE’S COURT FOR ELKO TOWNSHIP, THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF FISH and GAME, THE NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL, Respondents
v.
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELKO, and the JUSTICE’S COURT FOR ELKO TOWNSHIP, THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF FISH and GAME, THE NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL, Respondents
10981.
Nevada Supreme Court.
Mar 13, 1980.
Evans & Bilyeu, and Zane S. Miles, Elko, for Petitioners., Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General, Harry W. Swainston, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, and Thomas L. String-field, District Attorney, Elko County, for Respondents.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 80 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Nevada Supreme Court (3)
OPINION
Per Curiam:Petitioners have filed an original application for a writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition contending that respondent Fourth Judicial District Court erred when it reversed an order of the justice’s court of Elko Township granting a motion to suppress certain evidence in a criminal proceeding wherein petitioners are charged with committing a misdemeanor.
Petitioners were charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a misdemeanor under NRS 484.379. The cases were set for trial in the justice’s court of Elko Township. Prior to trial, petitioners filed a motion to suppress the results of a sobriety test and breathalyzer test on the grounds that such results were the fruits of an illegal search and were obtained in violation of petitioners’ fourth amendment rights. The justice of the peace granted the motion and the state appealed to the district court. See NRS 189.120. The district court ruled that the motion to suppress should have been[*289] denied and remanded the matter to the justice’s court for further proceedings. The matter was then stayed pending resolution of the instant proceedings.
1. This court has often stated that the inquiry upon a petition for a writ of certiorari is limited to whether the inferior tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction. [1] See Iveson v. District Court, 66 Nev. 145, 206 P.2d 755 (1949); State ex rel. Hinckley v. Court, 53 Nev. 343, 1 P.2d 105 (1931); Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nev. 158 (1877). If it is determined that the act complained of was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, our inquiry stops even if the decision or order was incorrect. Iveson v. District Court, supra. As this court appropriately stated in Martin v. District Court, 13 Nev. 85, 90 (1878):
But the important question in this case is not whether the district court erred in reversing and setting aside the judgment of the justice’s court, but whether it exceeded its jurisdiction. The proceeding is by certiorari, and if the district court had the power on appeal to hear and determine the question . . . then its order, no matter how erroneous, must stand.
Here, the district court clearly had the power, under NRS 189.120, to review the order of the justice’s court granting the motion to suppress. [2] Thus, we may not inquire into the correctness of its action upon a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Luc v. Oceanic Steamship Co., 84 Nev. 576, 445 P.2d 870 (1968); Iveson v. District Court, supra.
Moreover, we have held that certiorari is not available to decide a question of the admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained in violation of constitutional requirements. Glass v. District Court, 87 Nev. 321, 486 P.2d 1180 (1971).
2. A writ of prohibition, like a writ of certiorari, will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration. Arascada v. District Court, 44 Nev. 37, 189 P. 621 (1920). The purpose[*290] of the writ of prohibition is not to correct errors, but to prevent courts from transcending the limitation of their jurisdiction in the exercise of judicial power. Walser v. Moran, 42 Nev. 111, 173 P. 1149 (1918), modified on rehearing, 42 Nev. 156, 180 P. 492 (1918).
Thus, since we have concluded that the district court did not exceed the limits of its jurisdiction in this case, prohibition will not lie to review its action. See Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. District Court, 94 Nev. 247, 578 P.2d 750 (1978).
Application denied.
1
NRS 34.020 provides in part:
“2. The writ [of certiorari] shall be granted in all cases when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. . . .”
2
NRS 189.120 provides in part:
“1. The state may appeal to the district court from an order of a justice’s court granting the motion of a defendant to suppress evidence. . . .”