Case number 83412 pertains to the civil appeal "Mueller vs. Hinds," currently under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nevada. The case is consolidated with case number 84077 and originated from the Clark County Eighth Judicial District. Appellant Craig A. Mueller is represented by attorneys Michael J. Mcavoyamaya and Timothy E. Revero, while respondent Cristina A. Hinds is represented by Lorien K. Cole and Marshal S. Willick from the Willick Law Group.
The document notes that a specific document related to this case is currently unavailable, with instructions to contact the Clerk's Office for access. It clarifies that the information provided should not be considered an official record of action, as only filed documents are accessible. Several due items are outlined, including a pending remittitur as of October 10, 2022, and a $250 filing fee that has been paid.
The timeline includes various procedural steps, such as the filing and rejection of a transcript request, notices regarding the appeal process, and a schedule for submitting documentation. Key dates include the notice of appeal filed on August 24, 2021, and the subsequent motions and orders related to the briefing schedule and transcript requests. The appellant was given specific timeframes for filing necessary documents, including a 40-day period to submit the fast track statement and appendix following an order amending the briefing schedule.
On November 17, 2021, the Respondent filed a Notice of Child Custody, followed by the Appellant's Notice in Response. On November 19, the court clarified that the ongoing litigation concerns only financial issues, not child custody, despite the appeal challenging the original divorce decree that does involve custody. The Respondent was given 21 days to file a fast track response. Several appendices related to the Appellant's Fast Track Statement were filed between November 29 and December 17, 2021. On December 8, the court granted an extension for the Respondent's fast track response, now due by December 17, 2021, which was subsequently filed with multiple volumes.
On January 21, 2022, the Appellant filed a motion to remove the case from the Child Custody Fast Track Program, which the Respondent did not oppose. A reply from the Appellant supporting their motion followed. On January 28, the court granted the motion to remove the appeal from the fast track, allowing 45 days for the Appellant to file an opening brief without requiring a new appendix unless necessary. The request to consolidate appeals was denied without prejudice due to one appeal being in the settlement program.
Subsequent motions to consolidate the related appeals were filed, with the Respondent not opposing the consolidation. On February 16, 2022, the court consolidated the appeals for all purposes, giving both Appellants until March 14, 2022, to file a combined opening brief. An order on February 24 amended the briefing schedule to allow for parallel submissions, detailing additional appendix filing requirements.
On March 14, 2022, the Appellant filed several documents, including an Opening Brief and Supplemental Appendix for cases numbered 83412 and 84077. These submissions were rejected the following day due to deficiencies noted in a notice issued on March 15, requiring a corrected appendix within five days. On April 4, 2022, the Respondent submitted their Answering Brief, which faced rejection on April 12, 2022, along with another Answering Brief filed the same day. The Appellant replied with their Reply Brief on May 4, 2022, followed by the Respondent’s Reply Brief on May 5, 2022. On May 6, 2022, the case status was updated to indicate that briefing was completed and the case was to be screened.
On September 15, 2022, a dispositional order was filed, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court's judgment, and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this order. Senior Justice Mark Gibbons participated in the decision. On September 19, 2022, the Respondent filed a motion to publish the order as an opinion.
