David Zenoff

This case concerns Judge Jerry Carr Whitehead's petition for extraordinary writ relief against the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline in an ongoing judicial discipline matter. The court resolved several pending motions, including the Commission's request to file an oversized rehearing petition, its motion to strike Whitehead's answer, and the petition for rehearing or amendment of the court's prior interlocutory opinion. The court denied the motion to strike and the rehearing petition, concluding that the latter was a successive and procedurally defective filing that did not identify any overlooked facts or law, while directing that the oversized document be accepted for the record only. The reasoning emphasized compliance with appellate rules, the limited scope of rehearing, and the need to clarify the court's supervisory role and prior interventions in the Commission proceedings.

procedure

This case involves a district judge's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition against the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, alleging that the Commission and its attorneys violated court-promulgated rules governing confidentiality, investigations, and proceedings. The Nevada Supreme Court explains its prior actions, including temporarily staying Commission proceedings, maintaining confidentiality, and ordering an in camera inspection of Commission records to assess whether jurisdictional excesses occurred that would warrant writ intervention. The court relies on its constitutional authority under Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which grants it appellate jurisdiction over the Commission, the power to issue writs, and the authority to promulgate rules for the Commission's governance, including confidentiality requirements. The opinion addresses disputes over compliance with these orders and the scope of the Commission's authority pending any final disciplinary decision.

procedure

This case involves a district judge petitioning the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition against the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, alleging that the Commission and its prosecutors violated rules promulgated by the Court regarding confidentiality, investigations, and proceedings. The Court explains its prior actions, including temporarily staying Commission proceedings and ordering an in camera inspection of Commission records to assess whether excesses of jurisdiction occurred that would justify intervention. The core reasoning rests on Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over the Commission, the power to promulgate rules governing its operations, and authority to issue writs necessary to exercise that jurisdiction. The opinion emphasizes that such in camera reviews are standard judicial practice to evaluate claims before broader disclosure.

procedure

The case involves appeals by former District Judge Paul S. Goldman from a district court order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the governor to appoint physicians for a disability retirement determination, and from a decision by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline removing him from office for willful misconduct and habitual intemperance. Goldman moved to disqualify Justices Young and Steffen from hearing the appeals, citing their prior involvement in an administrative order temporarily relieving him of judicial duties and related correspondence. A panel of unchallenged judges denied the disqualification motions. The court reasoned that the justices' actions stemmed from judicial and administrative proceedings rather than extrajudicial sources, provided no evidence of personal bias, and aligned with precedents requiring disqualification only for personal rather than judicially acquired impressions.

procedure

This case involved the State of Nevada petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to reinstate an original sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility against defendant Seymore Husney, who had pleaded guilty to one count of an infamous crime against nature. Husney had begun serving the sentence before filing a motion to modify it, which the district court granted after determining it had misapprehended or been misinformed about relevant sentencing information, resulting in the sentence being suspended and Husney placed on probation. The Supreme Court of Nevada declined to issue the writ. The court reasoned that under the circumstances, the district court acted within its jurisdiction to correct the sentence based on the record from the plea, presentence report, and psychiatric evaluation. The decision focused on procedural authority for sentence modification rather than the underlying facts of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

Excite Corporation applied for a business license to operate a bookstore and adult film arcade in Clark County but refused to seek required zoning approvals under then-existing code provisions, instead filing suit for declaratory and injunctive relief on constitutional grounds. After a new zoning ordinance regulating adult uses took effect in October 1979, the district court enjoined enforcement of the prior licensing and zoning scheme (which the county conceded was invalid) and issued a writ of mandamus directing the zoning administrator to approve the location under the new rules. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the injunction against the old scheme but reversed the mandamus, holding that Chapter 29.49 applied because Excite had not commenced actual operations or established a nonconforming use before the new ordinance's effective date, and a prior conditional use permit for the shopping center did not substitute for compliance with the updated requirements.

business & regulatorypropertyfree speech