Hepworth (Joseph) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

 adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal from the district court's
denial of their petition. See NRS 34.120 (authorizing an appeal to this
court from an order of the district court resolving a petition for a writ of
review); NRS 34.170 (stating that mandamus will issue "where there is
not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law");
see also NRAP 3A(b)(1).
Moreover, we have "stated that the inquiry upon a petition for
a writ of certiorari [writ of review] is limited to whether the inferior
tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction," and "[i]f it is determined that
the act complained of was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, our
inquiry stops even if the decision or order was incorrect." Goicoechea u.
Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).
Here, the district court acted within its jurisdiction by considering the
petition for a writ of review or, in the alternative, writ of prohibition. See
Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6. Therefore, we may not inquire into the correctness
of the district court's action upon a petition for a writ of review.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.
J.
Gibbons
Pideutiy J.
Pickering
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A carp
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge
Elko County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Elko County District Attorney
Elko County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A Cep