Vogler v. State, Dept. of Agriculture ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   at issue turns on facts unique to the matter at hand, 1 and both the State
    and Vogler raise no more than a theoretical possibility that the same
    controversy will recur. 2 Murphy v. Hunt, 
    455 U.S. 478
    , 482 (1982); Sample
    v. Johnson, 
    771 F.2d 1335
    , 1342-43 (9th Cir. 1985); Langston v. State,
    Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 
    110 Nev. 342
    , 344, 
    871 P.2d 362
    , 363 (1994).
    As we indicated in our February 5, 2014, order, the court
    recognizes that the State has invested "significant time, money, resources
    and effort" in this litigation. And Vogler, too, apparently wishes to have
    this court hear the merits. But we cannot enlarge our jurisdiction "beyond
    'Namely: Vogler's supposed protected interest in his terms of office;
    the legislative intent behind Section 15.5; the Legislature's alleged
    discriminatory targeting of Vogler with Section 15.5's enactment; the
    presence or absence of a "compelling state interest" in enforcing Section
    15.5; and an alleged flaw in the enacting bill's title rendering the section
    void.
    2 Contrary
    to Vogler's assertions, whether or not Section 6 of Senate
    Bill 251 remains in existence is irrelevant; the State demanded his
    removal under Section 15.5. Section 6 was not in issue.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    ve
    the constitutional grant of power." State v. Warrnington, 
    81 Nev. 369
    , 371,
    
    403 P.2d 849
    , 850 (1965).
    We therefore ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 3
    C.J.
    Gibbons
    Hardesty
    J.                                        J.
    Parra guirre                               Douglas
    Saitta
    3 We  agree with the State that this dismissal does not render Vogler
    a prevailing party for attorney fee purposes. See Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc.,
    
    109 Nev. 478
    , 485-86, 
    851 P.2d 459
    , 464 (1993); see also Nat'l Collegiate
    Athletic Ass'n v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 
    97 Nev. 56
    , 58, 
    624 P.2d 10
    , 11 (1981)
    (noting that by dismissing a case for mootness the court is "refus[ing] to
    determine questions presented ....").
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A    e
    cc:   Chief Judge, The Seventh Judicial District Court
    Hon. Miriam Shearing, Senior Justice
    Smith & Harmer
    Attorney General/Carson City
    White Pine County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A