The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district court’s discretion. If granted, this writ would have compelled the district court to grant the petitioners’ application to intervene under Rule 24 of the Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure as defendants in a constitutional challenge to a program that awards grants to children who are educated by entities other than public schools. The State is presumed to adequately represent the interests of those who support the bill. Since they did not demonstrate a conflict of interest with the State’s position or present an argument that the State would not make, the petitioners failed to overcome this presumption and may not intervene as a matter of right. The petitioners have also not provided any supportable reason for reversing the district court’s discretionary decision not to grant permissive intervention. Since the Court treats this decision with deference and since the district court invited the petitioners to submit amicus briefs in lieu of intervention, the Court perceives no abuse of discretion to warrant granting a writ of
Smith, Douglas H., "Hairr v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016)" (2016). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 945.