HAACK v. EVENDEN (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This court's review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears that the order designated in the notice of appeal is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). The court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from a post-judgment order denying a motion for judicial recusal. See Ham v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 93 Nev. 409, 412, 566 P.2d 420, 422 (1977); Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. 251, 254-55, 112 P.3d 1063, 1066 (2005) (“We have previously noted that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to seek disqualification of a judge.”); United States v. Washington, 513 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1978) (recognizing that “denial of a motion to disqualify is not a final order nor one that should be treated as such”). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.