MURPHY v. Alicia Murphy, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Peter MURPHY, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable David S. Gibson, Jr., District Judge, Respondents, Alicia Murphy, Real Party in Interest.

No. 79791

Decided: March 18, 2020

Cramer Law Firm Pecos Law Group

ORDER DISMISSING WRIT PETITION

Petitioner contends that, absent a remand under Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978), disapproved on other grounds by Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. 49, 228 P.3d 453 (2010), the district court lacks jurisdiction to hold a calendar call and order discovery regarding real party in interest’s motion to relocate while petitioner’s appeal in Docket No. 78300 is pending. However, after petitioner filed this writ petition, this court ordered a Huneycutt remand. See Murphy v. Moore, Docket No. 78300 (Nov. 1, 2019, Order Granting Motion for Limited Remand and Suspending Briefing Schedule). Consequently, there is no longer any relief that this court can grant petitioner within the context of this writ petition, rendering the petition moot. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (“This court’s duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment”). We therefore dismiss this writ petition.

It is so ORDERED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network