Document Type
Case Summary
Publication Date
2-8-2018
Case Synopsis
The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.
Recommended Citation
Malloyd, Shaneka J., "Quinn v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (en banc)" (2018). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1132.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvscs/1132