Buckholt v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, In and For Washoe County
| Decision Date | 28 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 10268,10268 |
| Citation | 584 P.2d 672,94 Nev. 631 |
| Parties | William Charles BUCKHOLT, by his guardian, Patricia A. Buckholt and Patricia A. Buckholt, Petitioners, v. The SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF WASHOE, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Peter Chase Neumann, Reno, for petitioners.
Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd., and George W. Swainston, Reno, for respondent.
Petitioners brought suit against the Jeep Corporation, a Nevada corporation, seeking damages for injuries allegedly resulting from a single vehicle accident involving a Jeep CJ-5 manufactured by the Jeep Corporation. The accident occurred on October 5, 1976, near Cheyenne, Wyoming. Jeep moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of Forum non conveniens. Respondent court granted the motion, without prejudice, and petitioners instituted this proceeding.
In opposition to the petition, respondent contends (1) the complaint was properly dismissed; (2) a writ of mandamus is an improper method of challenging the dismissal; and, (3) the petition was untimely. We disagree.
1. The petitioners, now Ohio residents, have chosen to litigate in Nevada. Since Jeep is a resident of this state by virtue of its incorporation, and does business here, we conclude that the district court is obliged to accept jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of Forum non conveniens is inapposite, and Jeep's motion to dismiss should not have been granted.
2. Although mandamus does not lie where errors are committed in the exercise of judicial discretion, we have previously decided that "where the district court wrongfully or erroneously divests itself of jurisdiction, . . . mandamus is the proper remedy." Swisco, Inc. v. District Court, 79 Nev. 414, 419, 385 P.2d 772, 774 (1963), citing Floyd v. District Court, 36 Nev. 349, 135 P. 922 (1913).
3. Respondent next contends that a petition for a writ of mandamus, like an appeal, must be filed within thirty (30) days, as mandated by NRAP 4(a). 1 Writs of mandamus, however, are governed by NRAP 21 which specifies no particular time limit within which a petition for a writ must be filed. 2 Nevertheless, as extraordinary remedies, such writs are subject to the doctrine of laches. See Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367, 39 S.Ct. 293, 63 L.Ed. 650 (1919). In determining whether the doctrine of laches should be applied to preclude consideration of the present petition, we must determine whether (1) there was an inexcusable delay in seeking the petition; (2) an implied waiver arose from petitioners' knowing acquiescence in existing conditions; and, (3) there were circumstances causing prejudice to respondent. State, Crooke v. Lugar, 354 N.E.2d 755 (Ind.App.1976). We have reviewed the record and find no basis for applying the doctrine of laches and, therefore, conclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westerby v. Johns-Manville Corp.
... ... 681 (671) Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania November 16, ... Rev. 1162 (1970); Restatement ... (Second), Conflict of Laws § 84 (1971); 20 Am. Jur. 2d ... exercise of sound judicial discretion in this regard is the ... yardstick ... 141 ... (1926); Nevada: Buckholt v. The Second Judicial ... Dist. Ct. of State of ... ...
-
State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct.(Anzalone)
...950 P.2d at 281. 11. Building & Constr. Trades v. Public Works, 108 Nev. 605, 611, 836 P.2d 633, 637 (1992); Buckholt v. District Court, 94 Nev. 631, 633, 584 P.2d 672, 673 (1978). 12. Building & Constr. Trades, 108 Nev. at 611, 836 P.2d at 637. 13. Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 45......
-
State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct.
...108 Nev. 605, 610-11, 836 P.2d 633, 636-37 (1992). The doctrine applies to a petition for a writ of mandamus. Buckholt v. District Court, 94 Nev. 631, 633, 584 P.2d 672, 673 (1978). In deciding whether to apply the doctrine to preclude consideration of such a petition, a court must determin......
-
Pan v. Dist. Ct.
...original jurisdiction. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 109 Nev. 662, 856 P.2d 244 (1993). 11. 94 Nev. 631, 584 P.2d 672 (1978). 12. Id. at 633, 584 P.2d at 673. 13. Id. 14. 96 Nev. 773, 616 P.2d 400 (1980). 15. Id. at 774, 616 P.2d at 401. 16. 97 Nev. 228, 626 ......