Narrative Opinion Summary
A writ of prohibition was initiated in this court through a filed complaint. The court, acting on its own initiative, granted an alternative writ and established a briefing schedule for evidence presentation and briefs according to S.Ct. Prac.R. X. The timeline requires the parties to file evidence within 20 days, with the relator submitting their brief 10 days after evidence is filed. The respondent must file her brief 20 days after the relator's brief, and the relator may submit a reply brief within 5 days after the respondent's brief. Additionally, the court ordered a stay on the portion of the respondent’s order that the relator seeks to prohibit, as per S.Ct. Prac.R. X(6). Judge Lundberg Stratton concurs but prefers to maintain the judge’s order without a stay, while Judge O’Connor advocates for granting a peremptory writ. Judge Cook did not participate in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Briefing Schedule in Writ of Prohibitionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court outlined specific timelines for the filing of evidence and briefs by the parties involved in the writ of prohibition.
Reasoning: The timeline requires the parties to file evidence within 20 days, with the relator submitting their brief 10 days after evidence is filed. The respondent must file her brief 20 days after the relator's brief, and the relator may submit a reply brief within 5 days after the respondent's brief.
Issuance of Writ of Prohibitionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court initiated a writ of prohibition process and established a schedule for evidence and briefing.
Reasoning: A writ of prohibition was initiated in this court through a filed complaint. The court, acting on its own initiative, granted an alternative writ and established a briefing schedule for evidence presentation and briefs according to S.Ct. Prac.R. X.
Judicial Opinions on Writ Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judges expressed differing opinions on the procedural handling of the writ, with one preferring no stay and another favoring a peremptory writ.
Reasoning: Judge Lundberg Stratton concurs but prefers to maintain the judge’s order without a stay, while Judge O’Connor advocates for granting a peremptory writ.
Non-Participation of Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: One judge did not participate in the decision of the case.
Reasoning: Judge Cook did not participate in the decision.
Stay of Order under S.Ct. Prac.R. X(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ordered a stay on the portion of the respondent’s order that the relator seeks to prohibit.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court ordered a stay on the portion of the respondent’s order that the relator seeks to prohibit, as per S.Ct. Prac.R. X(6).