City of Las Vegas v. Dist. Ct. Seaton (Joseph) ( 2015 )

 the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule" (internal
quotations, brackets, and citations omitted)); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 233, 112 P.3d 1070, 1075 (2005) (concluding
that "extraordinary relief is not warranted for routine correction of errors
that a district court may make," and "[t]hat the [prosecution], or even this
court, might disagree with the district court's conclusion is not a reason to
seek extraordinary relief as long as the district court has made a
reasonable effort to follow the applicable law"); Round Hill Gen.
Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536
(1981) ("Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action unless
discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."
(internal citation omitted)). We are not convinced that our intervention by
way of extraordinary relief is warranted, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677,818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (holding that the
decision to entertain a writ of mandamus is within this court's sole
discretion), particularly where the matter is remanded for a new trial.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Saitta
I CACI
Pickering
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Las Vegas City Attorney
Las Vegas City Attorney/Criminal Division
Law Offices of John G. Watkins
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A