Gollard, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Hidalgo)
Docket: 85164
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; September 23, 2022; Nevada; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Dr. Russell Gollard, challenging a district court's order that denied his motion to dismiss a medical malpractice case. The court has original jurisdiction to issue such writs, but the decision to entertain the petition is discretionary. Petitioners must demonstrate that extraordinary relief is necessary, which is only warranted when there is no adequate remedy at law. Generally, an appeal is considered an adequate remedy, even if the order in question is interlocutory, as it can be reviewed upon appeal from a final judgment. In this case, the Supreme Court found that Dr. Gollard did not show that an appeal would be inadequate. Furthermore, he failed to provide a compelling reason to deviate from the established principle that the court typically does not review denials of motions to dismiss through writ petitions. Consequently, the court ordered the petition to be denied.